|
|
|
|
||
|
||
|
|
||
| SEARCH | SUBSCRIBE | ||
Some related articles : |
 |
Cost of Living Too High for Some Tenants
The letter from Heidi Sweigart's new landlord made her feel anything but welcome. "Your current lease will expire on Aug. 31, 2002, and it is our sincere hope that you will continue to make Wakefield Towers your home," it said. Sweigart said her lease was supposed to expire Sept. 30. The letter also noted that the rent on her first-floor, two-bedroom apartment in Arlington's Wakefield Towers complex would increase nearly 26 percent -- from $960 to $1,207, including new fees of $7.50 per month for trash removal and $30 per month for water. She could expect future increases for heat and electricity, the letter said. Sweigart was also advised that unless she signed a long-term lease, a $100 monthly premium would be tacked on for renting on a month-to-month basis. Other notices listed a slew of new fees to cover amenities such as a balcony, a view of the pool or carpeted floors. There would be a new $400 pet fee, too. "I felt like we were being tossed out," Sweigart said. "Now you can't even have a pet roach." So, Sweigart, who has lived in the complex 12 years, is moving away. So is Helen Kulik, 72, a retired secretary who intends to pack up after 47 years in Arlington and move to her daughter's home in Ohio. So is Abu Kasim, 31, a driver who shares an apartment with his sister. So is Ashwani Nigam, 38, a night manager in a fast-food restaurant. Subrahmanyeswararao "Subra" Kilari is thinking of going, too. "I'm the one breadwinner in my home," said Kilari, a software engineer who lives in a one-bedroom apartment with his wife and daughter. "With this kind of increase, it doesn't make sense to rent an apartment." Since United Dominion Realty Trust Inc. took over the 40-year-old Wakefield Towers complex at 4301 Columbia Pike, many tenants have complained that they are being driven away by rent increases of as much as 34 percent. Some blame corporate greed. Others blame county officials for kowtowing to developers, leading to a loss of affordable housing and pricing many longtime residents out of the county. Others shrug: This is life in a market economy, they say. Officials with United Dominion, which purchased the building this spring and renamed it Taylor Place, said the rent increases are necessary to bring the apartment complex up to market level and cover $3.5 million of renovations and routine maintenance that the previous owners had neglected. The company does not want to displace tenants and has been working with several to soften the blow on current tenants by reducing rent increases and fees on a case-by-case basis, said Andrea McGowan, a district manager for United Dominion in Woodbridge. Many new fees, for example, do not apply to current tenants, she said. "It certainly is an unfortunate situation, and we certainly do not want to force anybody out," McGowan said. "All we're doing is charging the fair market value. These residents were paying significantly less than the market value." United Dominion has embarked on an overhaul of the complex that includes upgrading the electrical service, expanding the parking lot, bolstering security by changing all locks and improving exterior lighting and buying new furniture for the pool, patio and lobby. The company also plans to build a fitness center and a business center for tenants. Even the mailboxes will be new, McGowan said. The change sweeping through Taylor Place also illustrates the conundrum county planners face as they move ahead on an ambitious plan to redevelop Columbia Pike: how to fix up a ragtag urban corridor without wiping out affordable housing for low- and middle-income residents. After more than 150 community meetings organized by the nonprofit Columbia Pike Revitalization Organization, the County Board earlier this year adopted an overall plan to remake the 3.5-mile strip into a boulevard of high-tech companies, cafes and shops. Although many county residents have spoken in favor of the plan, several have told the County Board that more should be done to preserve affordable housing. Taylor Place "is just a skirmish in a larger struggle," said Jay Jacob Wind, president of the Arlington Heights Civic Association. "There's no right answer. You want to see better housing and a return on investment. But you also want to see affordable housing." United Dominion, one of the nation's largest real estate investment trusts specializing in multifamily units, purchased Wakefield Towers in April for $19.7 million. At the time, the 218-unit complex was fully occupied and the average rent was $954 per unit, company officials said. United Dominion's recent acquisitions include the 397-unit Presidential Greens apartment complex in Alexandria, bought in May for $30.2 million. Altogether, the company owns several complexes, with about 1,291 dwellings, in the metro area in Virginia and Maryland. "It's been a trend," said Kristin Carbone, a staff coordinator for Buyers and Renters Arlington Voice (BRAVO), referring to the takeover of apartment buildings by real estate investment trusts, which are often known by their acronym REITs, pronounced "reets." Carbone said that the companies used to snap up high-end properties but that as the housing market tightened, they have been eager to buy and upgrade moderate apartment complexes. "They're in the housing business only for profit," Carbone said. Denver-based United Dominion, which is listed on the New York Stock Exchange, owns about 78,000 apartments. Its total assets are valued at approximately $3.4 billion. In reporting financial results this month, the company said profits -- as reflected in its adjusted funds from operations -- had grown 19 percent to $46 million in the quarter that ended June 30, up from $38.7 million in the previous year's quarter. Tenants say those big bucks are squeezed from little people like them. "It was a nice, convenient place to live until the devil came in and shook it up," said Patricia Stanley, 46, an adult education teacher in county public school system. Stanley, who has lived in the complex for five years, will have to pay $1,014.50 a month in rent for her one-bedroom unit, a 34 percent increase. "It's too much," she said. "It's taking half of my take-home pay." Stanley said she will buy a house instead, but it troubles her to think of what will happen to her neighbors in the building. "I'm concerned about the senior citizens," she said. "We have people who've been here 30 and 40 years." County elected officials said the free enterprise system -- and Virginia's particularly robust defense of property rights -- have tied their hands. In the best of circumstances, local government can do only so much to preserve affordable housing. The situation is all the more complicated since the County Board has been one of the biggest boosters behind redeveloping Columbia Pike. The Columbia Pike Revitalization Organization, a nonprofit partially funded by the county, plans to conduct design workshops beginning Sept. 6 that invite the public to brainstorm plans for redevelopment. County Board Member Barbara Favola (D) said the Columbia Pike revitalization plan would encourage companies to buy and redevelop properties along the corridor, potentially raising the cost of doing business there and displacing long-term residents. "The flip side is, do you let things deteriorate?" she said. By stepping in to guide development, she said, the county is recognizing the inevitable while also helping to shape its growth. Many properties along the pike will be developed with special use plans and expedited approvals that allow county planners more leverage to squeeze concessions from developers, including commitments to affordable housing. Wayne Kubicki, a member of the county's affordable housing task force, said he was skeptical of claims that people in the complex are being treated unfairly. He said he is also skeptical of some governmental intervention in the market, such as rent control. "Is it a kick in the teeth? Yeah, it is," Kubicki said. "It's not as affordable as it was. But it's still affordable." Kubicki said that if the Virginia General Assembly were to reverse its longstanding opposition to allowing localities to impose rent controls, developers would have fewer incentives to invest in real estate and landlords would be disinclined to keep up their properties. "Everybody can't afford to live in Arlington," Kubicki said. "We're in a very desirable spot in a huge metropolitan area. Can everybody afford to live here who wants to live here? Absolutely not. That has never been the case, and it never will be the case." United Dominion said Taylor Place tenants benefited from the previous owner's neglect. The previous owner had passed along rent increases of perhaps 3 percent to 5 percent and failed to keep the place up, McGowan said. "We looked at this property as a mismanaged property," she said. "We looked at this property and said, 'We can do this better.' " Several tenants have told the new owners that they are pleased with the changes -- and although 40 people have moved out since United Dominion took over, the turnover rate is not much different from the county as a whole, she said. Several tenants wonder what good amenities are if you cannot pay the rent. Others dismiss the work as cosmetic. "It was a nice place -- it was," Kulik said. Although she agreed that the new management has spruced things up and replaced her broken appliances, she said she can no longer afford the apartment. An epileptic who makes do with Social Security, alimony from her former husband and disability payments, Kulik said she has to forgo buying dentures because she is so strapped for money. "There should be rent control," she said. "We have these politicians down there sitting on their butts. They should be helping us to get decent places."FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Global Action on Aging distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
|
