Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But an eviction notice last fall, for him and about a hundred other seniors living in the Vintage Westwood Horizons retirement home, upped his game. In his latest*blog post, he described the high drama at a meeting last week in which management reiterated to stressed-out tenants that they’ll have to move out during building renovations that could take more than a year.
Many of the tenants are far from destitute, or they wouldn’t be living in a Westwood high-rise, but this fight is partly about principle. Others insist they can’t afford the higher prices at other retirement homes, some of which have big entrance fees and aren’t rent-controlled, like their beloved building*in Westwood, with its cruise ship mural in the dining room. They fear burning through nest eggs and dread asking family members for financial help.
For many, their down-the-hall neighbors are like family, and they can’t bear to part ways with their buddies.
Is this merely a rent control issue or is this possible elsewhere especially as buildings age?
From the article:
"Under state law, residents must be offered roughly $19,000 in relocation costs.
Watermark says those who return after the rehab can do so at their current monthly rates, which range from $4,000 to $7,000 for room, meals and activities. And food service and activities will be free to current tenants who relocate but wish to drop by during the rehab."
Yes, it is awful to go somewhere temporarily. But they have compensation AND come back with their current rent rate. Not to mention the free food and activities....
Is this merely a rent control issue or is this possible elsewhere especially as buildings age?
This has been happening to many people for many years. When my Portland neighborhood began gentrification in the 1990's the many retirees who lived there because of the low rents were forced to move when these rents were increased by $100-$200 a month. Some of the owners spruced up their older buildings or did needed repairs, most didn't. No one helped the incumbent tenants financially; not to find a new place to live, not for moving expenses, nada.
The people in the story are getting a lot of compensation. And they will be allowed back at their present rents to a newly renovated apartment? Sounds like a sweet deal to me.
90ish seniors throwing tantrums and barring their doors.
It sickens me.
Have a bit more sympathy for elderly residents - change can be hard enough when you are young, but to have lived in a place you know inside and out and then be required to go through the disruption and uncertainty of a move is very difficult, particularly if the residents are at all frail. Many people at that age (not all) don't adapt to change well.
After my FIL died, we had to move my 89-yr-old MIL to a place closer to her daughter and the change was very difficult. So hard on her that we considered leaving her in her preferred place, except that it was 2+ hours (in summer, much more in the Colorado winter) from her daughter, which meant it was hard on her daughter to provide care for her mother.
Have a bit more sympathy for elderly residents - change can be hard enough when you are young, but to have lived in a place you know inside and out and then be required to go through the disruption and uncertainty of a move is very difficult, particularly if the residents are at all frail. Many people at that age (not all) don't adapt to change well.
These are people who are well-off. Odds are they won't have to lift a finger in the process. They've benefitted from a law (rent control) that restricts the supply of affordable housing for other people. Those other people are struggling to live in L.A. because their jobs are there. Sometimes they work two, three jobs to be able to afford housing.
And you want me to feel sorry for people who've had everything made easy for them.
Any building might need to be vacated for renovation. The town I lived in had a low-income senior apartment complex, a nice one in a good part of town. You shoulda heard the whining and screaming from some occupants because their FREE renovations required that the tenants move out for a week or two, during which the owners PAID A DECENT STIPEND FOR TEMPORARY HOUSING. Some tenants happily stashed the cash and lived with friends or relatives during that time. But others protested at the inconvenience. Good thing the whiners didn't own a home themselves! Oh, wah, the inconvenience of having to stay elsewhere for a short time like that...entitlement crybabies.
I read the original blog by Emiel Meisel, (http://oleguyramblin.com/author/meisel/)which true to its name does ramble and turn back on itself. The building is an old ex-UCLA dorm that was never refurbished for it's current use.
"a former UCLA dorm is what I have been callin’ the CAN!! While bloggin’ away today the thought finally struck me that there is a characteristic to this building — never re-worked for senior livin’ — bathrooms, etc., are exactly the way they were years ago when young male and female UCLA students were housed here. There is nothin’ in our room (#XXX) [blocked by me for privacy reasons] that would indicate it has been remodeled for senior livin’!!"
The blog is very clear that there are people there of means and people there with limited means and that no one really knows who is whom, as that is not discussed among them.
The blog also states that the author checked into other living arrangements but could not find any that was affordable for him in the area on a monthly basis.
The residents appear to be very aged, as he discusses them using 3 "very's".
Loss of the companionship among the residents...which, from his writings, appears to be a very homogeneous group, is the second biggest concern.
This is a very sad situation. The new owners of the building certainly have the right, and perhaps the obligation, to renovate the building so that it is up to code and fit for its purpose. I can certainly see their side and the safety risks involved.
Tuborg, I'm not sure how one does plan for it. I suppose you could avoid this by only living in a newer building which was originally designed and built for its intended purpose. As Mathjak and you point out often, having assets allows people to have more choices. It's a very sad situation.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
