Landlords Versus Squeaky Wheels

Today's Washington Post features another account of the classic tenant-versus-landlord tale. And of course, right from the headline Told to Go, She Made a Stand, the story is written from the tenant's perspective. But the headline could just as well have been Deadbeat Tenant Successfully Petitions Government to Bail Her Out.

In a nutshell, Michelle Armstead received a notice on November 1 that she would be evicted from her Castlegate Apartment Homes apartment in Maryland on December 31. The management company had decided to renovate all of the apartments to the tune of $6 million and evict a few unsatisfactory tenants who had submitted numerous late payments or criminal records. Armstead had been late with her rent many times and had previously received eviction notices, so the landlord denied her petition to transfer to another apartment.

Armstead didn't think the landlord's treatment of her was fair. She became angry and mounted an organized compaign. She left flyers for her neighbors that stated: "Let's not sit back and let the powers that be tell us when we have to leave our homes. . . . Don't let them take away our power!!!!" She contacted Maryland Del. Herman L. Taylor II (D-Montgomery), who told the Post that although the renters "have done things wrong, . . . they need to be treated very carefully. They're the voiceless in our society."

Due to the squeaky-wheel noise of Armstead and Del. Taylor, Joe Giloley, chief of the county's Division of Housing and Code Enforcement, took a closer look at an agreement that the landlord and county officials signed when the company bought the property in 2003 (the reasons for this agreement, which was likely induced or coerced, are not provided in the Post article). Giloley believed that the agreement prohibits the company from using rental history as a basis for denying a tenant the option to transfer to a different apartment.

Faced with the "clarified" agreement with the County, Castlegate will not evict Armstead for the moment, but will charge her $1,008 for a newly-renovated apartment better than the apartment that she now rents for $800. "Sitting in her apartment, with its empty shelves and full packing boxes," Armstead whines: "It just feels like I'm being set up somehow."

Armstead may be setting herself up. Few of her financial details are disclosed, other than she takes home about $2,000 per month, her rent is $800 (soon to be $1000), and she has a $486 car payment. That last bit suggests that Armstead may not have her financial priorities straight.

I remember when, during my first year after law school, I took home about $1,500 a month. I rented a room in a house for less than $500 and bought a pretty decent used convertible that I still own today with monthly payments of about $250.

My advice to Armstead? Ditch the car, which is probably costing her a lot to insure as well. She could buy a brand new car for $12,500 with no money down with $289 monthly payments (at 10 percent interest given her questionable credit). The monthly savings will almost cover the amount of increased rent. Why should the landlord, who is investing $6 million to improve the apartments and the quality of life of its residents, give any slack to tenants who would rather drive nicer cars than pay their rent on time?