September 23, 2007
Alone Together
Former Editor-in-Chief Ryan Avent writes a weekly column about neighborhood and development issues.
The Washington Highlands neighborhood of the District of Columbia is terra incognita for many Washingtonians. Tucked up against the District’s southeastern border with Maryland’s Prince George’s County, the area is walled off from the rest of the city by Oxon Run Park, the Anacostia Freeway, Bolling Air Force Base, and the Anacostia River, not to mention the yawning gap between its economic and demographic profile and that of the city at large. Overwhelmingly black, it’s nonetheless poorer and less employed than the District average for the black community--Ward 7 has a similar racial profile, but enjoys higher incomes, better education, less crime, and less poverty. In Washington Highlands, half of all children are born into poverty.
The neighborhood burst on to our consciousness this week, however, as the fallout from a confusing and tragic police drama focused the city’s attention on the world apart a mere four miles from the Capitol Dome. Last Monday night, DeOnté Rawlings allegedly stole a minibike from the home of a local police officer, located in a gated townhouse community just a few blocks from Rawlings’ residence in Condon Terrace. The officer, James Haskel, arrived home to find his bike gone, then left in his SUV with fellow officer Anthony Clay to try and find the stolen property. From there, details become hazy. The officers say they found Rawlings with the bike, and that the youth fired three times into the SUV before the men had a chance to identify themselves as police officers. Residents of the surrounding neighborhood suggest that the bullets may have come from another shooter entirely. Either way, Officer Haskel returned fire, and Rawlings ended up dead of a gunshot wound to the head.
The days since have been chaotic. Federal investigators have taken over the case. Mayor Fenty has held four press conferences on the incident, the last of which devolved into shouting as Rawlings’ sisters peppered officials with questions. District police officers have begun grumbling to the press off the record, expressing anger over the mayor’s deference to the relatives of young man they see as a would-be cop killer. Investigators allege that Fenty’s diplomacy might compromise their investigation. No less a personage than ex-police chief Charles “please-don’t-audit-my-crime-stats” Ramsey chided Fenty for speaking so often to the public.
And in many public forums, vitriol has swamped careful analysis of the situation, what went wrong, and what is at stake. Let’s be clear: the act of stealing the minibike was wrong and criminal and Rawlings deserved to be arrested and tried for that crime. He did not deserve to die for it. Others will argue that he did deserve to die for shooting at police officers. But one has to remember two things: first, it is not clear that Rawlings did fire on police, and second, he may not have known that his targets were police officers. This is important; in a neighborhood where beefs often result in gun battles and murders, the sight of an SUV cruising slowly around the neighborhood could have been terrifying. Rawlings may have felt that his life was in immediate danger.
Picture taken by e.teel.
Does that fear justify the act of firing randomly at unknown automobiles? No, absolutely not, in no way does it do so. Does it indicate that the police response was way off base in this situation? Absolutely. And this is why I have a great deal of understanding for the path Mayor Fenty is following in the wake of the shooting. Police, understandably, want him to send the message that aggression against cops is beyond the pale and unforgivable. I think Mayor Fenty knows that police officers must be a part of the community and not apart from the community. In the long-term fight against crime, it’s more important to try and defuse an us-against-them mentality than to tell police that he has their back in all cases, no matter what they’ve done.
Ward 8, crime-wise, is a mess. Many news organizations have noted glumly that the District’s homicide numbers are up this year relative to last year. That’s misleading; for Wards 1 through 7, there have been 3 fewer homicides this year than there were during the same period last year. For Ward 8, there have been 17 more this year than during the same period in 2006. All of the city’s homicide increase can be explained by increases in one ward.
Why are crime numbers there so stubborn? The difference is due, in part, to the persistence of beefs between rival crews and neighborhoods. These groups remain attractive to young people, and generally reckless, due to the overwhelming sense of hopelessness and lack of opportunity available. As Rodney Taylor, a firefighter quoted in a Post story on the Rawlings shooting says, “These brothers are hurting. They want somebody that can offer them something. The most hurting thing is so many say to me, 'I'm 14. I know I'm not going to make it to 18. Why should I change?'”
But these kinds of problems are not only confined to Ward 8. The difference in outcomes between that area and the rest of the city stems from other neighborhood factors—primarily, the attitude of the local population toward police. In other neighborhoods, policing is more effective because the level of trust between residents and cops is far higher. Residents expect that a police call will bring an officer, who’ll do a reasonable job attempting to solve the problem, while officers believe that residents will call when they have needs, and will work with officers to solve cases. Trust between residents and police is mutually reinforcing and makes the business of policing far easier for police.
There is no such trust in Ward 8. Residents cannot be confident that police will respond or that they’ll be fair and attentive when they do. They suspect that police will play fast and loose with rules and evidence when they need to. And because local residents are wary of police officers, they’re much less likely to take the risk of testifying against wrongdoers in their neighborhoods. Officers routinely express frustration with residents’ unwillingness to work with them to solve crimes, but why should they? Robert Pierre writes in the Post:
The killing also raised the ire of Condon Terrace residents, many of whom harbor negative feelings toward the police. Some said officers don't respond when they're called; others said the police who do come often rifle through the pockets of youths and adults who haven't done anything wrong.Faced with risks on both sides, the best solution for many is to simply keep their mouths shut.
This is what Mayor Fenty sees. Just as positive resident-officer interactions are mutually reinforcing, so too are the negative ones. Anything that separates the policed from the police makes residents less likely to work with officers, and makes officers more likely to retreat behind their cars, guns, and authority, perpetuating a cycle that allows crime to flourish in neighborhoods like Washington Highlands.
If I were a police officer, I would probably be frustrated with the mayor. Theirs is a difficult and dangerous job—one I in no way envy. But the future of crime fighting in Ward 8 depends upon residents there having confidence in the police force. They have to know that the city will not sacrifice due process and justice for the sake of efficacy. The actions of the officers in this case are unlikely to make local residents feel better about the policemen in their midst. Mayor Fenty has to do what he can to mitigate the damage to the public’s trust in police. I, for one, support him in those efforts.
|
It is not only about trust, but snitches get shot!
I live in Ward 8 and have been a victim of random crime [shots fired and I was left with a baseball sized hole through double-paned glass from a shotgun randomly fired. Yes I was home, yes I was sitting in front of the window, and no I didn't deserve to have to dive for my safety in fear of my own life]. Yes, the police responded to my 911 call, but the way it was handled, the attitude I received from the first responding officer, who did not want to stop eating her fritos much less get out of her car, was not the best representation of the District police.
Numerous times the police have been called in my neighborhood, and numerous times the police have never been seen. No response, just more gunshots. I've addressed this at neighborhood meetings. I've called the Ward 8 Police station and spoken with supervisors and shift managers etc always being promised that officers come, but can't find the danger.
Can't find the danger, or don't want to find the danger. No hope?..yea, I'll say. Pick any street wandwiched in between Barry Farms and Parkchester, and the police should have no issue finding the problems. But they actually have to step foot in these neighborhoods. They actually have to spend time in the trouble spots. And that is our problem. Night after night, I come home to large gatherings of men on the street and no police in sight. 3am arguments, turning into fights, turning into bodies. The bodies bring the emergency vehicles.
What I want to know is why 9th and O Streets NW get spotlights and police cars sitting idling waiting for crime to happen and Ward 8 has constant dark streets and crickets hiding under rocks, b/c we aren't protected. I pay my taxes just like NW. Why should I have to call 911 3-4 times a night requesting police presence only to NEVER see a response?
This story is tragic, but unfortunately, old and never-changing. Spotlight is on us now, b/c of a tragedy, and your story depicts the facts and unanswered questions fairly, but seriously...when is DC really going to care enough about changing the statistics of ward 8?...
"[Rawlings] may not have known that his targets were police officers... [and] may have felt that his life was in immediate danger."
OR, based on the way in which crooked cops harrass, beat, and, yes, kill people, Rawlings may HAVE KNOWN they were cops AND that his life was in immediate danger.
"OR, based on the way in which crooked cops harrass, beat, and, yes, kill people, Rawlings may HAVE KNOWN they were cops AND that his life was in immediate danger."
Why, in that case, would shooting at the officer be the best course of action? Wouldn't he know, particularly if the cops were so very crooked, that by shooting at a cop that he would be sure to be hunted down and killed by the cops?
I live in a house which is subdivided into 4 total apartments. The house was formely owned by a woman who hired a management company to act as landlord.
The building was recently sold to a new owner. The new owner just told us he is going to rehab the building and these fixes cannot occur with the tennants in the building. Also, the landlord said he was going to raise the rents 50 percent (this building is rough on the edges, and has been under market value for some time).
If you know anything about rent control, I need your help. This doesn't sound fair. I was just going some minor homework and it looks like the most they can raise rent is 10-percent unless they petition the housing board.
HELP HELP HELP!!!
Guest 5: You admit that the rent has been 'under market value for some time', yet you feel justified in making sure the rents aren't raised?
Really?
How would you feel if your salary was arbitrarily kept 'under market value' for some time?
And maybe the landlord is right, that the building needs rehab. Yet you selfishly want to prevent that just so you can get artificially low rent.
Is there anything else you think you are entitled to at below market rate? Perhaps you are entitled to your groceries at below cost? Perhaps your clothing?
How about
Sorry for the abbreviated post above.
Guest 2:
That was an excellent post in many ways.
When DC police say they are doing 'all they can do' to fight crime that is pretty much BS. When people can deal drugs and such in the open, year after year, with cops almost never showing up to stop it, that's not doing 'all they can do'. DC cops have ceded entire blocks to the criminal element. I wish they'd at least admit it.
I was on H St NE last week, in the middle of the day. At H and 12th or so I saw a fairly amazing amount of drug dealing going on, right in front of me. During a span of 20 minutes or so 2 police cruisers came by. Neither of them seemed the least bit interested in what was obviously drug activity.
But it's not just a job for the cops. If I was a cop I'd get mighty tired of trying to help residents only to find those same residents heaping scorn on me. I'm not saying that's what you are doing. I'm saying that a lot of residents in high crime areas in DC are decidedly unfriendly to the police when police do actually show up and try to do their jobs. After a few years of this hostility I'm not sure how motivated I'd be to continue trying to help residents that by and large seem to despise me.
And it's the job of parents and adults in the neighborhood. They need to start working with cops and demanding change, much like you are doing.
Wu-Tang Killer Bees: Let's Get Ready to Bumble!!! (See Argyle Academy, from previous DCist post)
Hillman, I am guest 5. The point is, the previous landlord undercharged, but that's not my fault -- I have a lease! We have a legit legal claim here. There are rights to protect people from being thrown out of their apartment when they are under lease. I am trying to figure out what those are. So, I'll just go ahead and cross you off the list of people willing to help.
I hope the investigation brings out what really happened. On the surface it sounds like the two cops were pissed about the bike being stolen. They had guns and they were out for blood. Literally. I believe that not all police officers would have acted the way they did. But the fact is a 14 year old boy was shot in the head and all the facts should be brought to light. IMHO Fenty's pandering to the victim's families is not his job. There are over 300 people murdered in DC every year. Who's family will he be visiting next?!?
A youngish teen getting shot and killed by MPD rightly is news.
Unfortunately, a youngish teen shooting at someone else somehow isn't news.
I'll wait until the facts are in on this one before I think I know what really happened. However, it seems to me that the kid likely fired at the cops and was shot for it. Justified? No. But it would have been easy to prevent: don't ride a stolen motorbike and then shoot at cops. Heck, don't even ride a stolen motorbike.
It's frustrating to see the pictures of the victim on the news. Those pics look like they are of someone much younger than 14 years old and I think they may unfairly paint a picture of a potentially more innocent child than who the officers actually came in contact with that night.
Guest 5:
You didn't really answer the question. Why are you morally or ethically entitled to under market rent, especially if that under market rent is literally taking someone else's income? And why doesn't that entitlement extend to other items, like groceries, clothing, your entertainment choices, etc?
Hillman - Wah, wah, wah; STFU already! Please don't hijack this thread for another of your insane rants about how tenants fuck over their landlords.
Seriously, for real; let it go, nobody cares.
Yeah Hillman, your line of thought is totally irrational here. Someone's asking about legal rights and you're off in a marijuana haze asking about morals. but the bong down libertarian.
Sorry everyone, Hillman got the original commenter confused with someone who once smoked a cigarette within 500 miles of him. He gets pissy like that.
I didn't start this topic. Guest 5 did. I simply responded.
And judging from the hostile responses I got, I guess I touched a nerve. It sucks when down deep you know that rent control is ethically and morally BS and you are taking advantage of a stupid law which essentially legalizes stealing someone's income when you aren't morally entitled to it, doesn't it?
This idea actually has some relevance to the actual topic of this thread. Just like Guest 5 thinks he's entitled to take advantage of rent control laws to get what he's already admitted are under market rents, there is a great sense of entitlement in many poor DC communities - that residents are entitled to tons of free shit essentially just because they were born. The author points out that unemployment in this are is very high. This, while the DC area is in the midst of a very strong economy, with jobs available even for those with very limited actual job experience. Why is that? A sense of entitlement. That society (and by that they mean all of us that actually go to work for a living ) owes them free housing, free food, pretty much free everything.
Exposure to violence does in fact create pathologies that are quite sad. But equally sad is the idea that you don't have to ever be a contributing member of society, that you don't have to get a job, that an existence supported by the taxpayers is acceptable, that you can scam off of others and that such scamming is acceptable.
So really, we're only talking about a matter of degree here. Guest 5 feels it's morally acceptable to legally scam his landlord for undermarket rent. Many in low income areas feel it's acceptable to scam taxpayers for free lodging for generations. Once you accept such concepts as a basis for your 'income', then it's not really that hard to move to the next step - where petty theft and crime are acceptable because 'they owe it to me'. And petty theft and crime often leads to violent crime. It's such a sense of entitlement that contributes eventually to an environment where crime does grow, and where people end up wasting their lives (and their children's lives) doing nothing.
Again Hillman, put down the bong.
Guest 20: That's the best you've got? "Put down the bong"? That's not really much in the way of substantive argument. And it's not really even witty banter either.
But I'll go ahead and drag that fairly empty comment back to the topic at hand - drugs.
What would help is if we'd go ahead and legalize at least some drugs. So much of the crap that goes on in DC is because drugs are illegal. Of course we can never do it on our own, being the bastard stepchildren of the country, but legalizing and regulating at least marijuana and possibly others would be a huge step in the direction of improving these neighborhoods and actually helping the people there become contributing members of society - helping us and them at the same time.
Hillman,
Please shut it. You need to able to let some of these things go once in a while. The initial comment was off topic - the only reasonable response would be maybe a link to some legal info and we could all move on. Instead you bring it into a personal one-on-one with someone who's just asking for some information?
A total stranger, who, regardless of the merits of their particular grievance is clearly in a difficult and desperate situation, and your first instinct is to unload a judgmental harangue?
You really need to reign it in. Sometimes you offer useful input, but you just hijack way too many threads here.
Fenty wouldn't be getting it from both ends had he used the time-honored response, "I feel that it's inappropriate to comment on a pending investigation." All he's succeeded in doing is piss off the cops and the neighbors.
As for the tenants-screwing-landlords angle, that's one of the reasons rent control's been on the decline in cities in general and DC in particular. Once you learn to work the loopholes, you can go up to 18 months without paying rent. Bust your window out and refuse to pay until it's fixed. The landlord is obligated to do so. Repeat until the landlord files the eviction notice. That can take upwards of 9 months to resolve as the onus is on the landlord to prove malice. It's those exception cases of being an a**hole that have made living in rent controlled housing impossible for people legitimatly trying to get on with their lives.
Again I am guest 5. I am not asking for a free handout, Hillman. All I want is a reasonable chance to renew my lease at a reasonable increase, not the 50-percent increase the new owner seeks. However, there is some law about only owning 4 or less properties to skirt rent control. Hillman, the previous owner fixed the rent, not me. I simply replied to an ad, liked the place, and signed the lease. I've been living here for two years, and I like where I live, simple as that. It's not that I want a free handout, it's that I posted for help explaining the laws to me, because laws exist for special situations. Did you ever consider the rent may under market value because the building, while having great location, is in a remarkable state of disrepair which is not health-threatening, and thus does not require repairs. Repairs are one reason rents can increase in DC. I'd love to see you respond to being asked to pay a substantial increase in rent or vacate your apartment of 2 years in 30 days.
Hillman, you are my soulmate.
Guest 22:
As always, if you don't like my posts, don't read them.
A poster was asking for advice on how to screw someone out of their income. I merely responded. It's not personal. What I care more about is the idea behind Guest 5's sense of entitlement, and I was interested in what other free shit he thought he was entitled to. Which does, by the way, link quite nicely to the topic at hand.
As always, if you don't like my posts, don't read them.
You just use this line as a way to dodge the issue that your interminable ranting takes over threads and annoys the hell out of other readers.
Did He Who Shall Not Be Named's posts not bother you? Did you just not read them? He was banned for a reason.
Monkey:
I agree about Fenty. He has managed to irritate nearly everyone. I've talked to a couple of cops that are furious with Fenty for what they view as refusing to stand up for his police officers until all the facts are known.
And there is a lot unknown in this situation. At a bare minimum it raises very good questions about proper police protocol. I don't have a huge problem with the cops investigating the theft initially. But they should have called it in while they were doing it, and that whole thing about leaving the scene after the shooting is just bizarre.
But from what I saw Fenty didn't phrase it in terms of protocol or procedure issues. The actions he chose were unfortunate in that he appeared to be automatically assuming the cops were lying about everything. And he ended up essentially created a circus-like press conference where family members could inadvertantly embarrass themselves by asking things like why the cops weren't automatically indicted, without an investigation.
Again, it's guest 5. I object to your use of the word 'screw'. I'm going to speak to the DCRA today to find out the legality of the matter. All I can say is, if you were in the same situation, would you take your brand new landlord's notice to sign a 50% increase rent lease else move out in 30 days at face value, or would you research the laws which exist to help you in the matter?
Guest 5:
I'd move out. I don't think I have a right to reduced rent if it means I'm getting it at the expense of someone else's income. Just like I don't think I have a right to walk into the corner grocer and demand that the hard-working grocer give me milk at 50% below the market rate.
I can empathize with wanting cheaper rent. But your cheaper rent should not come at the point of making sure someone else's income is artificially reduced and making sure they can't repair the property they own.
If you prefer, we can use the term 'get shit from other people for free because I legally can' over 'screw'. But it amounts to the same thing - you are demanding that a landlord (apparently a small landlord, from your 4 unit or less description) be required to cut you a break on the rent, and you are demanding that he not be able to fix up his property.
Maybe there are serious issues with the building that require a gut job. But no. Your entitlement to reduced rent is apparently more important.
You describe the property as being in a 'remarkable state of disrepair'. If it's in a 'remarkable state of disrepair', chances are there are some very real safety issues. Chances are the electrical and plumbing systems are ancient and in dire need of update. These can in fact be health-threatening.
One of the primary reasons there is so much substandard and unsafe housing in DC is because tenants fight like hell to make sure landlords can't have access to the property to make necessary repairs. True, some landlords are also scumbags and won't fix anything unless required, but I'd say just as often it's because some tenants make it very difficult.
And you still haven't answered my question. You apparently feel entitled to reduced rent. I simply asked why you feel this is your right. So far I still don't understand why you think this way. Do you also think you are entitled to reduced prices on groceries, clothing, your entertainment choices, maybe your vehicle?
BostonRay Knows: Rent Control is unfair to the population as a whole. With the lowering of the property values of the rent controled buildings you have lower tax production received. This is made up by the higher tax burden placed on non-rent controled buildings and higher rents paid by renters. It is a form of state welfare. Only a few benefit. Were the market rate to determine costs all would benefit and the properties would be better maintained. Rent control is a major anti-incentive to an owner to upgrade their property. It actually ruins neighborhoods. Guest #5 may have a legal case however. The new owner would have known that they were rent controled units.
Consistently outspoken and illogical, your steady flow of egregious and bitter bitching over the past week has caused me to question your sense of entitlement, hillman. In reality, you have only demonstrated the inability to comprehend the concept of charity, and continue to deny help towards those less fortunate (less fortunate through no fault of their own).
hillman, prepare for death by bukkake!
A bit more on the 'remarkable state of disrepair'.
Houses and apartment buildings don't exist in stasis. The more deferred maintenance there is, the more they deteriorate. Making sure a landlord can't renovate or repair a property often ends up costing the landlord tens of thousands (sometimes hundreds of thousands) of dollars more in the long run. Great example: water leaks. Buildings in a 'remarkable state of disrepair' often have plumbing problems that if left unchecked end up causing tens of thousands of dollars in structural damage, mold infestations, etc.
So tenants demanding that they be allowed to interfere with a building rehab often results in far more extensive damage to the building, especially over time.
Guest 31 is absolutely correct when he says this sort of thing causes a whole lot more substandard housing - to the point where that's pretty much all there is in entire neighborhoods.
Guest 5: This was an inappropriate place to post your question. Not only did it distract from a good conversation about the actual post, but it gave Hillman a chance to shower us with self-righteous nonsense.
PLEASE stop engaging Hillman in this battle. As we can see, he has an infinite supply of rude, small-minded comments. Hillman is a hypocrite who will rage on and on about all the people in this city who feel entitled to "free shit", while at the same time stealing from his own employer by spending significant time posting on this blog. Just let him be. You can't reason with people like him.
Littleshit:
I understand helping those less fortunate. Giving them free shit for decades and not requiring them to become productive members of society, then blaming everyone else when they harm society and themselves is not helping them. It's hurting them.
As I've stated repeatedly, I'm a fervent supporter of programs designed to help those that will work and be decent members of society (if able). But handing out free shit with no requirements or responsibility attached ends up hurting far more than it helps.
Hillman, it's not so much that I feel I deserve a low rent. Like I said before, I am not the one who fixed the previous rate. I was inquiring about laws which regulate apartment costs. Otherwise, why is there not one fixed rate for apartments based on size and location?
What I am more conscious of is the 30-day notice. From what I gathered, 30 days notice to vacate is only proper for violation of the terms of the lease. As you might understand, the difference between choosing to move out of a building at the end of a lease -- whereby you would start saving well in advance, locating new apartments, making contacts, etc. -- and being suddenly given 30 days to vacate are different.
As I was planning on renewing my lease, but now being suddenly faced with different options, I can accept that a new owner will raise the rate. What I would like is this to be legally seamless. Surely, you can understand that.
Also, regarding your argument about the owner's actual income -- does the market value determine what that income would be? And even then, I can't say the apartment's value was determined by a rent appraiser. The landlord said he did his own research -- who would you trust in that situation? I don't know that his determined value is necessarily the true market value. He knew the value of the rents being charged.
Lastly, I don't think it's been mentioned yet, but in DC, if a landlord owns more than 4 rental units, they are subject to rent control increases unless they petition to be free of this. I certainly would not vacate unless I was shown evidence of this.
Guest 31, from what we've gathered, being subject to rent control is partially based on number of rental units owned by the owner. If you own 4 or less units in the city, you can petition to be free from rent control. In this case, as there are 4 units in the building, it is critical to us finding out how many other units the landlord owns.
So on a related note, if anyone can provide me with a link where I can type in the owner's name and see if they own other properties in DC, you would be rocktastic beyond belief.
Hillman - Sorry you're wrong here. Assuming rent control applies (which was the question of the OP), the new owner should have done their DD and should have known what the current rent was, and what the maximum allowed raise under the law is. If the landlord cannot legally get the rent they want, it's the landlord's fault, not the tenant's fault for "trying to screw someone out of their income". Furthermore it's certainly not the tenant's fault for working under the law, no more than it is your fault for demanding someone follow the law and put out their cigarette at a bar.
Okay, my use of the term "remarkable state of disrepair" is misleading then. I was referring to the exterior of the building. The plumbing works fine. It's an old brownstone that has not been remodeled in any form, so the edges are worn. It's certainly not worthy of premium rent.
Politburo:
You seem to be confusing legal with moral.
Question: what is the difference if the 14-year old knew whether he was firing at police officers?
Provided that the 14-year old was indeed shot in response to his firing on the vehicle, wouldn't self-defense be a legal justification for both police officers and civillians? At worst, a non-officer that returned fire would be brought up on weapons charges, but the use of deadly force to counter the use of deadly force would negate murder, no?
Granted, we don't know for certain that it was the 14-year old that fired the .45. But if he did instigate the incident twice, then my guess is that the mindset of the police officers becomes much less important.
Again, lots of "ifs" here...
So morality is the basis of fair market value? Do you know anything about markets? Markets -- housing, securities, currency, whatever -- ideally work on the basis of transparent rules, agreed under conditions of equal information, not moral values. Which is all that Guest 5 is asking for. If the rules are inefficient, change them. If the rules governing the rules are wrong, change the rulemakers. But to say that it's immoral or unethical for a citizen to investigate and then demand her rights under the existing regulation is inane.
Ad Hominem: I agree with the posters here that your contributions are detrimental to discourse here. Every thread seems to be tainted by your hearsay-basis or personal-anecdotal "facts," your primitive deductions from first principles ("it's a sense of entitlement that leads to violent crime"), your typical false libertarian oscillation between demanding the expansion of your freedoms and calling for the restriction of the rights of others, and by your evident unhappiness.
In fact, for its detractors, rent control is an example of rulemaking under the influence of morality rather than bargaining.
It's a pretty safe bet that if the building 'has not been remodeled in any form' then your plumbing and electrical systems are decades old at best. Just because you don't see the problem doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
"Otherwise, why is there not one fixed rate for apartments based on size and location?"
Because this isn't government housing. It's owned by private individuals.
"I certainly would not vacate unless I was shown evidence of this."
So again you reiterate your moral entitlement to artificially reduced rent and your moral right to stand in the way of a landlord repairing his property.
I can't pretend to know your legal rights in this circumstance, because I don't know the details. And rent control laws recently underwent a major overhaul, and I'm not sure I really understand all the changes.
But my focus is on your moral justification, not your legal right.
But again you don't state why you are morally entitled to artificially reduced rent. Just because it's legal doesn't make it right. And you don't state why this wouldn't apply to your groceries and such, from a moral standpoint.
I do agree that 30 days isn't a lot of time to plan (and I think if you dig further you'll find that landlords probably have to give more than 30 days notice if they are emptying a building to do repairs or renovation). But that's the amount of notice the vast majority of tenants give their landlords when they are moving out, even if they know six months before that they are leaving.
Landlords in this or any other city should not be expected to run non-profit organizations. If the government decides that someone is entitled to reduced rents (for whatever reason) then that should be accomplished via vouchers. Landlords should be allowed to operate their buildings as the businesses which they are. Why is it OK to interfere with their business and not others (like restaurants)? Why not regulate what is charged for the food that people on food stamps buy?
No, morality is not the automatic basis of fair market value determinations. Market conditions are - even though I would hope that morality plays a role when decent people interact in an economic situation.
Morality is an entirely separate issue. I just think it's not morally defensible to take income from landlords, especially small-time landlords, just because you legally can.
Again, just because it's legal doesn't mean it's right.
Deonte's involvment in this tragedy will not justify the officers actions. Everything aside, an OJ style vigilante mission was invalid, and the officers actions should not be vindicated despite the possibility of hostile gunshots. Understandably, many readers are unable to comprehend the "survival" mentality and lifestyle enforced by dc's numerous inner city gutters. DeOnte Rawlings is neither responsible for his upbringing or mentality, both of which i do not have proper knowledge of. However, in consideration to the blocks that raised him, deonte had every right to suspect that a creeping SUV symbolized immediate and potentially lethal threat and danger. As did everyone else on the blocks that these officers were "patrolling".
Hillman - Have you considered switching to decaf? Let up off the throttle; I understand your beef with rent control but rent control didn't appear out of thin air, my understanding is that it was a response to abusive practices by landlords.
Guest 5 - You screwed up by not buying the building when it was for sale. I'm saying that it's easy, but it can be done.
Ryan - Fenty made the right move by calling in the Feds, but once he did that he should have zipped his lip. Maybe the solution to the crime in Ward 8 is to move police headquarters over there or the motor pool or something that's going to force cops over there.
Rat:
Moving police headquarters may help, but it's no guarantee. The huge MPD station at 3rd and NY NW has been there for as long as I can remember, but up until quite recently crime was very high within two blocks of that station. Apparently the cops there felt that as long as the crack dealing wasn't actually on the hood of their parked cars it was ok.
Rat:
True, rent control has been with us for a while. And you are right - it didn't appear out of thin air. But in DC at least it continues with us despite decades of being shown to be a failure in part because classism, racism, and anti-Semitism. I've routinely heard anti-Jewish rants when I go to Rental Housing offices, both from aggrieved tenants and from Housing staff. Apparently the theory is that if you don't know your landlord personally, they must be Jewish. And we all know all Jews are fabulously wealthy and penny-pinchers, so screwing them out of their rental income is justifiable.
And that sense of entitlement is now so deeply ingrained in DC culture that it is taken as an automatic right, that it's ok to mess with landlords and those that you perceive as being richer than you or even different from you, no matter what the actual circumstance.
I'm not justifying what some landlords do, in how they let their buildings rot, especially in poorer neighborhoods where they don't get as much rent. But rent control has very little to do with controlling slumlords (in fact, it actually makes most buildings worse as far as physical condition). It has everything to do with punishing people based on their perceived class and race.
The existence of rent control actually drives up the price of housing (study after study has shown this). So it actually makes places like the public housing complex where this shooting took place more prevalent, as the DC government reacts to the lack of workforce housing (created in part by rent control) by creating public housing with very little incentive for people to actually get a job and to avoid the street thug culture that is so easy for them to find.
I'm not blaming all crime on rent control. Obviously there are other more powerful factors at play. But I do blame the sense of entitlement and 'us against them' mentality that fuels ideas like rent control for a lot of the never ending cycle of poverty we find in DC.
"However, in consideration to the blocks that raised him, deonte had every right to suspect that a creeping SUV symbolized immediate and potentially lethal threat and danger."
So if I drive slowly through a public housing complex I deserve to get shot?
According to police (but still unverified), he shot into the SUV before the officers even had a chance to identify themselves or get out of the vehicle.
What about the possibility that he recognized the SUV? Apparently the cop in question lived only a couple of blocks away (and if I remember right it was his SUV, not his other cop buddy's?). There's a real good chance all the neighborhood kids knew who drove that SUV.
Hillman, seriously, whatever that batch of marijuana you picked up recently was like, do not touch it again, it's been dipped. Call the police and get that dealer dealt with. No one here is talking about rent control except you in your mind.
Guest 52:
That's the best you've got? Yet another 'you're stoned' reference? Please. You're giving unresponsive nonsubstantive snarking a bad name.
If you'd like to discuss substantively (especially about entitlement issues in DC), please be my guest. If you just want to snark unsubstantively, at least make it funny.
When landlords and hard-working grocers want to make money, it's "immoral" and "unethical" not to disregard your own legal rights and help them in their quest. When the poor receive benefits and services from government, well, that's just a culture of entitlement that leads to violent crime. I suppose you also think it is also unethical and immoral to tax estates, thereby encouraging trust fundees, scions of industry, and beloved pets to get a job and to avoid the street thug culture that is just soooo easy for them to find.
Oh yes, and that FMV income -- why should landlords receive it, really, given that it's arbitrarily determined by a complex of differential bargaining power and historical inequalities? Is it because they are entitled to it?
blahblahblah "alone together" was a great piece worthy of attention and comment, chill down with the rent control bickering
post #51: hillman im sick of trying to persuade you, your COMPLETE disassociation and lack of understanding towards dc is not worthy of further attention, and i suggest everyone else ignore any future comment on your behalf
The thing is Hillman... you're not ignoring me, my relatively minor comments aren't being ignored, they're being responded to each time, making me thing that I've stung you deeply where you live Libertarian. Someone who didn't care wouldn't have responded so many times.
My response is meant to symbolize how far removed you are from the conversation at hand. I will not join you in your arguments in the same way I won't argue with someone shouting on the street. They're argument is based on something entirely internal and has nothing to do with external input or what I'm thinking about.
You started arguing something that no one else was talking about, coming in opposition to something entirely unrelated to the conversation- absurdly so. Therefore the only proper response is to remind you of how high you sounded today, no?
Estate taxes?
I have no opinion on estate taxes.
And you misquote me a bit, to say the least.
I never said the poor shouldn't receive benefits and services. Quite the contrary. I said that they aren't automatically entitled to them, forever, with no strings attached, especially when the giving out of said benefits in the manner we currently do it actually discourages them from becoming productive citizens.
Big difference.
As for 'historical inequalities' in determining fair market value.... that's quite a stretch, even for the income-redistribution-happy DCist crowd. I didn't have a pot to piss in during my youth and early years. Nobody helped me. I scratched and fought for every nickel I had. And I still work hard. So, yes, I am morally entitled to make a profit, after years of sacrificing and working 70 hour weeks so I could buy rental property (assuming the market will bear me making a profit....).
And of course you are ignoring the fairly major risk that landlords take in even acquiring property. It's a lot of risk, a lot of work, and there's no guarantee that you'll get tenants, that your building isn't a money-pit, that the neighborhood doesn't degenerate, etc.
But I can guarantee that if I don't work hard at it, I won't make much money off of it. And it'd only be a matter of time before I lost it all.
Unfortunately, the exact opposite is true of the 'give me crap for free' folks mooching off the taxpayer dollars of the rest of DC citizenry. The less they work, the more they get for free. Of course, their kids are the ones that suffer. But apparently that's a trade-off they are willing to make.
Does this tie into the topic at hand? Absolutely. There isn't a 'lack of opportunity'
in these neighborhoods. There are tons of jobs in DC, even for the very unskilled. You just have to be willing to do them. And to do that you have to temper down your sense of entitlement.
My god, make it stop.
Sorry to keep feeding the trolls, but why do we need a moral justification for finding a "bargain."
Maybe I'm just a brutal cheapskate, but I get a kick out of buying things at "below market value." The suit I am wearing came from Filene's Basement and cost a quarter of what it cost in a department store.
On my way home I may stop ata grocery store or CVS. Inevitably I will purchase products on weekly special with my CVS "loyalty" card.
I may even stop off for a beer. Ideally during Happy Hour.
Why is getting a relative bargain morally wrong?
I agree. Most people like finding a bargain.
But landing a reduced rent via rent control is not finding a bargain. It's using government power to artificially create a 'bargain' at the expense of someone that may not be in a position to give such a 'bargain', and wouldn't have done it without being forced.
The suit you buy at Filenes Basement is something the department stores no longer want, for whatever reason. And Filenes is still making a profit off of it or off their enterprise generally. Same with CVS - they are making a profit regardless. That's not necessarily the case with a landlord. That may be his only income, and contrary to popular opinion not all landlords are ridiculously wealthy.
Nobody is forcing Filenes or CVS to price their items at what you may think is below market rate. It's their choice, based on the value they set.
It'd be the same as using the DC government to make it so that you could demand a gallon of milk for fifty cents from your local corner store, regardless of the economic harm that does to the grocer. Yes, that would result in a 'bargain' to you. But it would suck for the small grocer.
It's using the government to essentially steal a portion of the value of stuff that belongs to other people when that person could sell their stuff (in this case a rental apartment) for more money were it not for this artificial theft of resources.
Uncle, Uncle! We give. You win.
*sob*
See now, that wasn't so hard, was it?
would've been easier to circle around you and inflict projectile ejaculations to the eye, resulting in both physical and emotional trauma/detriment
Now, at least your post was moderately humorous, littleshit, if somewhat disturbing.
It's worth noting that no one was ever able to tell me why they are morally entitled to rent control.
Oh my God, I can't believe I'm even responding to this, but if you think that you should be the sole arbiter of morality, I invite you to start a revolution.
Also, please note that no one here is even trying to come up with a moral justification for rent control. They're all just trying to get you to shut up.