Hmmm…more information, please!

This article in the Washington Post on Saturday presents a “human interest” story about a woman, Michelle Armstead, who was fighting eviction from her Burtonsville, MD, apartment for repeated late rent payments. Some of her neighbors were facing the same issue for the same reason. Now, the apartment complex was using the fact that they were renovating the units along with the late payments as reason to evict (in lieu of relocating the tenants). Ms. Armstead rallied her fellow tenants to protest this. The Post characterizes her actions as “a lesson in individual initiative and why local politics matters.” (Washington Post, 12/31/05).

After reading the article, I’m not certain that I am willing to feel sympathy or as the writer intends, applaud Ms. Armstead for her chutzpah, strength or whatever. The piece glosses over many issues and I get the impression that Ms. Armstead believes that the apartment complex owes her lodging regardless of her payment record or others’ ability to pay their rent.

Now, the article states that she’s a single woman (without mention of any children) and takes home a little more than $2,000 per month from her job as a physician scheduler, which gives her a gross salary of more than $24,000 per year. In this area that’s on the low side, but it should be enough to cover her rent, which is stated as $800 per month. The article doesn’t say that the apartment complex is public housing and with a salary in the mid-twenties, I doubt she would qualify. Yet, she’s been late on her rent not once or twice, but admittedly many times. And if she’s having so much trouble paying rent, why not get a roommate? The article also states that she has a car payment of $486 per month. Is that all car payment or insurance too? If that’s just car payment, she may have a vehicle that is beyond her means. Does she think that the dealership or bank owes her transportation regardless of her ability to pay for it?

Ms. Armstead indicates that she was on disability for three months and as anyone knows and can understand, an unexpected medical problem can put one in the hole, but I don’t get the impression that all her problems have revolved around this episode. And generally, I believe, disability only kicks in after one has used up available sick leave. More questions, little information. The piece sums up by saying that her “initiative” yielded “bittersweet” results: she’s being offered a lease after paying rent on time for three months and at an increased rent of $1,008 per month. Now, who among you thinks these are outrageous terms (I dare you)?

As far as the information provided, it looks like the landlords want to have good tenants, ie, ones that pay their rent on time, and I see nothing wrong with that. Further, as much as we (renters) don’t like it, landlords are legally able to raise the rent every year unless prohibited by rent-control or –stabilization rules (which doesn’t appear to be the case here). Now, if the company was in violation of the lease agreements, that’s a different story, but that doesn’t appear to be the case here. I mean squatters’ rights? No.

My sympathies go out to those who have done everything right and responsible – and are being treated in an unethical or even illegal manner, but this article has raised too many questions about Ms. Armstead, by its omissions to make me feel that she has been wronged or that she is laudable for her stand against the apartment.