Well, if it helps, she can move into my bike.

If this place really is luxury apartments, I'm surprised they would trash up the front like that. Great way to get new tenants.

I thought sidewalk evictions were illegal in DC.

Kind of a pointless/inconsiderate post, but anyway, holy shit! (from the website):

483 sq. ft. Studio/Eff:
Starting $2,340

750 sq. ft. 1 Bedroom, 1 Bath:
Starting $2,740

PLUS $500/mo "common area amenity" fee.

That is nuts.

Wow. Quite the biased editorializing without any actual reporting. First, how do we know the building ownerss put this stuff out? I live next to an apartment building, and every time a tenant moves out they leave stuff like this on the sidewalk..... Apparently they think it is up to someone else to bag it all up and dispose of it for them.

Second, if this is an evictionhow do we know the tenant didn't deserve it? It is unbelievably hard to get a legal eviction in DC, even after a tenant trashes the place an doesn't pay rent for months.

Sommer- Is it safe to assume you've never owned a rental apartment and had someone trash the place and stiff you for thousands of dollars? From the tone of this article I assume you can't even imagine that's possible. That's a shame, since imagining all possibilities is what reporters are supposed to do.

Holy shit! Who the hell pays $3,000/month for 483 sq. ft. in D.C.? Those are fucking Manhattan prices!

Honestly, Hillman...it's a blog...A BLOG!!!! She's not doing HARD reporting. I doubt that the DCist folks get two sources before reporting things. She heard there was an eviction so she went to look into it. Relax!

Studios in Dupont are not this much money.

I live in 450 sq ft studio in Dupont for about $1300/mo.

When I was looking for studios in the area, they were about 1100-1700 - depending on size and amenities. A few were above that, but i never saw 3K for a studio.

Guest121:

Even blogs should at least try to present things factually. If not, there should be a big disclaimer. Something like "We reserve the right to just make shit up and/or ignore relevant facts when it suits our limited world view."

The bigger problem is the fairly idiotic and shopworn "all landlords/developers are evil fried-baby-eaters and all evicted tenants are sweet rays of golden dewey sunshine" mantra that infects this piece (and most other DCist articles on housing issues in DC).

Even though I did enjoy parts of the snarky tone as a theoretical pleasure. If only DCist could use that Snark Power for more worthy 'victims'.

Also, I may be wrong on this, but I've heard that at least some eviction orders specify that belongings will be put on the street so that the evicted person has a chance to come collect their crap. Even if it's not in the eviction order, many landlords do it to give tenants one last chance to get their worthless beanie baby collection (turns out you couldn't retire on that investment after all) and their boxes of Landlord-Hatin' Monthly (special centerfold issues of How to Screw Your Landlord in Ten Fun-filled Calorie-Burnin' Steps runs in nearly every issue).

Monkey: I had know idea Eckington was hirsute. It's always been my dream to live in a hirsute hood.

Heh. Earlier, I was going to say, "cue Hillman rant about 'stealing' from landlords in 3...2..1" but I didn't.

Hillman - Eckington may be hirsute, but it's not nearly as bear-friendly as Capitol Hill once was. It's practically a santorum-rimmed country bear jamberoo! Just ask Larry Craig.

"I doubt that the DCist folks get two sources before reporting things."

Wow, that's a defense?

It's not actually that hard to get an eviction in DC. And while on the one hand you could say, "hey, they didn't pay their rent for 3 months," on the other you could say, "it's a shitty economy and it might take someone a few months to get their things in order."

You want to be heartless, or not, in other words.

And yeah, that might not be a lot of stuff, but what if she moved out most everything before the boom fell and that's what was left?

All I'm saying is, beware the bad karma for taking any of that stuff or being condescending about someone else's troubles.

"They hear something they print it. IT'S A BLOG!!!!!!"

OK, I guess I bow to your capital letters and exclamation points. Still sounds kind of flimsy to me, though.....

one comment on E in DC: you don't always know you're being evicted when the landlord proceeds with an illegal eviction. i'm not saying it happened in this case, but it happens every day.... and in a legal eviction, the us marshalls do dump your stuff on the street.

Tenants: two resources for you follow

The Chief Tenant Advocate advocates for, educates, and provides outreach for tenants in the District of Columbia. The Office of the Tenant Advocate was established to respond to concerns about DC's tenants including the fact that tenants often don't know their legal rights as renters, tenants frequently can't pay for legal representation and tenants usually don't know how to use lower-cost court mediation and adjudication services.
From its creation until recently, the Office of the Tenant Advocate was housed within the Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs. As of October 2007, the Office of the Tenant Advocate is fully independent.
As part of the Office of the Tenant Advocate's transition to independent status the office launched its website earlier this month. The website provides information about the Office of the Tenant Advocate and how to contact us. There are links to various DC offices/agencies, HUD, DC Housing Authority and nonprofit legal help. The website is still under construction and future features will include an educational tutorial designed to educate and test your knowledge regarding rental information and laws in the District of Columbia as well as a registry of tenant associations.
Please visit the Office of the Tenant Advocate at http://ota.dc.gov.

DC Law Students in Court is a 501(c)(3) organization that does Landlord-Tenant law on a pro bono basis, only assisting tenants. They are open M, W, & F at their Chinatown offices (806 7th St NW Ste 300) and M-F at the Landlord-Tenant Courthouse 9:30-1:30. Stop by or call in for free legal advice (202) 638-4798. www.dclawstudents.org

Change my name to Hillninny? That's the best you've got? Really?

As for the suggestion that this evicted tenant contact the tenant's rights organization (who, but the way, makes the stunningly stupid statement that they represent 'all tenants')......

How about this? How about the tenant not rent a $3000 a month apartment (assuming they were)? I'd think that would be the first step toward 'getting help'.

I think we've figured out why the place is $3k a month: the longer and more pretentious the name, the higher the pricetag.

Try getting an efficiency for less than $3k a month at "The Chalfontempletonsorial Renaissance Park Lofts at the Colostomycenae Vistas: An Exclusive Community of Tastefully Furnished Gloryholes." The cleaning bill alone will set you back more than the monthly parking space.

I thought by definition gloryholes were at best minimalist..... it always kills my boner if the gloryhole is too gussied up..... then it looks like that hole in the wall between stalls didn't just happen there by chance or was punched there by someone with serious sexual repression issues, thus ruining the whole idea...

This post should have been called "Free Shit: 20th and N!!!"

Yes, Hillninny is the best I've got. Made me giggle. God I hate my life.

My cousin got evicted from her Pentagon City apartment without a real warning. There were notices sent out to everyone that *someone* was playing their music too loudly, but the management never confronted her directly about it. They didn’t go as far as to move her stuff to the curb, but they did tell her she had to be out in two weeks with no prior notification. I’m not defending her—I think she was being really inconsiderate by knowingly playing loud and disruptive music-- but the management should have at least had a talk with her before kicking her out.

To me this looks like leftover junk that the person didn’t want when they moved out. A lot of people throw away perfectly good things because they can’t be bothered to move them to their new place.

Southwest DC: What happened to your cousin was not an eviction.

Everett:

It's not hard to get an eviction in DC?

That's just not true. DC has some of the most pro-tenant eviction laws in the nation. All the tenant has to to is request continuances indefinitely, which they often do. Then they dream up other crap to extend the time period to as long as a year or more. There's even a provision that says you can't be evicted if the temperature falls below a certain point.

And DC's economy isn't 'shitty'. It's booming. Area unemployment is at historically low levels.

And why does that even matter, even if it were true? Do you get to go to your employer and tell him you understand the economy is shitty and tell him he doesn't have to pay you for three months or more, or until he feels like it some vague time in the future? I mean, you wouldn't want to be 'heartless' and demand an income, would you?

Do you expect your grocery store or dry cleaners to give you free shit for 3 months or longer because 'the economy is shitty', and you may or may not pay them sometime in the future?

No? Why not? I mean, they'd be 'heartless' if they refused, right?

People pay that much because they think it's chic.

Gbert:

Just because you can't answer the question doesn't make it a disengenous analogy.

Rental income is just that - income.

Just like the income you get from your employer.

Just like the income a grocer gets from his corner store.

When you take a service from someone and refuse to pay for it, that's stealing.

It really is that simple.

The difference is people don't like landlords and assume (often incorrectly) that landlords are all super rich, so their tiny and stunted little moral compasses tell them that it's ok to steal from them.

The difference here is people like you and Sommer feel like it's morally correct to take this particular commodity (an apartment) and refuse to pay for it. Yet you don't think it's correct to take groceries and refuse to pay for them, and you don't think that your employer has a right to take your salary from you. At least, I'm assuming you don't think it's correct. But who knows - maybe you think it's fine to take things and don't pay for them, regardless of what they are. Or does that moral elasticity apply only to apartment rentals?

I'm simply asking you to justify that moral selectivity bullshit with a rational explanation.

So far you haven't done so.

You got an answer?

So, still no answer, I see.

This is not a regulatory issue. It's a moral one.

But you are right in that I assigned certain thought patterns to you and Sommer primarily because you were defending an evicted person and assigning them automatic victimhood.

I suppose I should have asked why they get automatic victimhood before continuing on to the inevitable conclusion. My mistake, which I apologize for.

So now that I've apologized, how about answering the question?

Uh, not really. You were all over defending Sommers' idiotic original story expressing shock and horror that someone is kicked out of their apartment (when the far and away most common reason for eviction in DC is nonpayment of rent) and you were attacking me for suggesting otherwise (to the idiotic point of calling me "Hillninny", for some odd reason).

So I'm simply asking why, and asking you to justify.

But don't feel bad. You aren't the only one that's refused to answer this question when posed. In fact, no one has ever been able to answer it.

It's not a question of winning or losing. It's a question of having idiotic ideas of entitlement exposed for what they are - selectively applied BS and selfishness based on dislike of what someone does for a living.

You are right. My apologies. That's what happens when I get wrapped up in a rant.

Again, I'm sorry.

But, heck, I'll ask you the same question. Care to answer? Since you attacked my comparison and said that my premise that people that refuse to pay rent are stealing was 'nonsense', how about explaining how it isn't stealing, or how it's different than refusing to pay for groceries or refusing to pay someone their salary, from a moral perspective (we've already established that it may be legal, at least until the actual eviction takes place).

Oh my God! What is it with all that mess? If this is the way it looks from the outside then I imagine how it looks inside. I suppose they have a really modern furniture.