Blogs, Linn County Crossroads
Tenants near wit’s end at 1263 First Ave. SE, Cedar Rapids
Posted on Oct 23, 2009 by Adam Belz.
1263 and 1261 First Ave. SE, next to the Brewed Awakenings coffee shop and across the street from Coe College. (Adam Belz/The Gazette)
“How you doing?” I asked.
“Fine, you?” he said.
“You the property manager?” I asked.
“No,” he said.
“Is the property manager here?” I asked.
“No,” he said.
“Is the property manager ever here?” I asked.
“Who are you?” he asked.
“I’m a reporter at The Gazette,” I said.
He looked at me.
“Please do a story,” he said.
It turns out the front door’s lock has been broken for more than a month, the window on the back door is busted out, and someone has broken into one apartment and tried to break into another in the past two weeks.
The man I was speaking to was tall and bald, with an earing in his left ear and a deliberate way of speaking. His name was Eric Sorensen.
His apartment was the one that was almost broken into, and the evidence is clear. The door is splintered, and he had to wait Friday afternoon for more than an hour while a locksmith came to help him open the broken door.
Sorensen’s neighbor, Brian Blakely, caught the would-be burglar in the act, before the thief bolted out the back of the building. That was a week after Blakely’s apartment had been jacked.
The same guy, Blakely says, busted open his door, stole his rent money, $1,000 worth of video games, shoes, and a camera. To add insult to injury, the burglar stole a Wendy’s salad and half a jug of orange juice out of the refrigerator.
“How you gonna take some open f—ing juice?” Blakely said.
More seriously, Sewania Stokes, who lives with Blakely said:
“It feels like everything’s been ripped out of you. You’re scared to be in your place. It feels like you have to watch your back at all times. It’s supposed to be a secure building, and it’s not secure.”
In fact, neither the front nor back outside door was repaired after Blakely’s apartment was burglarized. Blakely and Stokes plan to move by the first of November.
The place has problems other than security. Hampton Courts is actually two apartment buildings — 1261 and 1263 First Ave. SE. I’ve got them listed separately on the map, but the two buildings are next door to each other, they both have 18 units and they’re owned by the same guy.
Police were called to one of the two buildings 279 times in 2008. That’s more than five times a week. The company that owns the buildings is called simply 1261-1263 LLC, which was incorporated by James D. Houghton. Houghton lists an Iowa City home address.
In August, an inspection of the building at 1263 revealed 67 violations. Chipped, peeling paint, no numbers on apartment doors, holes in the ceiling, smoke detectors not working, no flooring under the kitchen sink or bathroom vanities in one unit, broken light fixtures, leaky faucets.
Blakely says there’s worse. His bathtub would back up every month, and the last time it was stuck for three months. He was at an impasse with Eagle Property Management for three months before a code inspector ordered the manager to fix the plumbing. Cockroaches and spiders are always around. The buildings are heated through the steam system, which was knocked out by the flood, and the conversion to central heat won’t happen for at least another two months — the middle of December at the earliest.
The property manager has provided tenants with small black space heaters. Blakely considers his totally inadequate.
“That motherf—er look like a blender,” he said. “It’s gonna be cold as hell with them little things.”
I’m still working on a story about problem properties, and still looking for ideas and input. Please send me an e-mail at adam.belz@gazcomm.com
Ann_Onamouse
24. Oct, 2009
Who lets all these THUGS in the building in the 1st place? The landlord.
It doesnt take a genius to figure it out. Buy up property cheap. Be really lax in your standards, and let pretty much anyone who can come up with deposit and a months rent move in. Let people stay as long as the rent is being paid, laugh all the way to the bank, never putting in another cent into said property.
Who is responsible for the thugs living where they are living?
The landlord.
(That should really go without saying)
thereal
26. Oct, 2009
It does seem that all the fault should fall squarely on the landlord, and it’s pretty hard not to see otherwise, but it does present a double-edged sword. Certainly the owner could do a much better job of having a presence on-site, and keeping the property habitable. Perhaps I need to do more homework on the Fair Housing Act, but what happens should he/she deny housing to one of these “thugs”? No one can be denied housing, but it is up to the property owner to act once an issue occurs.
Iowarch
24. Oct, 2009
No, I think I have it right, if he doesn't clean it up for himself while he lives there, he is likely not to do it after the fact. Nothing so clears the mind about conditions others live in than by giving you the opportunity to live in their shoes. When you have to live in a place that is largely your responsibility to take care of, especially no heat, bugs, and uncleared drains, you will get it back together most ricky tick. Especially if you get one of those leg band monitors that won't let you leave the building without charging you with escape on on top of the time he already would be sentenced.
beechcomber
24. Oct, 2009
Is it just the photo, or is this building actually leaning?
OwenHarper
24. Oct, 2009
Photographing objects like buildings, it is not unusual to get distortion as in this photograph.
shotfeel
26. Oct, 2009
It looks like its leaning at first (and second) glance. I was trying to figure out if it was an illusion, or if maybe the street goes downhill to the left and the camera was tilted to make the street look level. The light pole and everything else seems to have the same tilt as the building. I just can't tell for sure though.
adambelz
26. Oct, 2009
No, the lean is an optical illusion. The buildings looks pretty sturdy to me, and I took the photo.
FullStop
25. Oct, 2009
I do got? What?
FullStop
25. Oct, 2009
Horrible reporting.
However, I'm not certain that I would sink any money into an apartment bldg if the cops were called that many times, either. There is no good going on there. The owner needs to unload it. But who would want it?
nohope
25. Oct, 2009
The cops were called that many times because of the people living there. Who's responsible for that? I'd say the landlord, wouldn't you? If he/she were more discerning maybe there wouldn't be so many problems.
There's an absolutely gorgeous apartment building on First Avenue just a couple of blocks away (towards downtown). The guys who own it are very selective in who they rent to and they don't seem to have these kinds of issues.
adambelz
06. Nov, 2009
nohope, what's the address of the place you're talking about?
Edgrimley
26. Oct, 2009
In the old days we would have torn it down and sent the unemployed tenants to waterloo. Where's Don Canney?!
thereal
26. Oct, 2009
It does seem that all the fault should fall squarely on the landlord, but it does present a double-edged sword. Certainly the owner could do a much better job of having a presence on-site, and keeping the property habitable. Perhaps I need to do more homework on the Fair Housing Act, but what would happen to the owner should they begin to discriminate? It all comes down to the owner needing to act swiftly once a situation occurs and on to the next incident waiting to happen would seem to be the life of a property owner. No one forced them into the rental property business.
basketcase
26. Oct, 2009
You need low income housing, this is low income housing. The discrimination happens at the time rent is paid. If you pay $1,000.00 each month for rent you have better neighbors in your building. If you pay $250.00 each month for rent you have burglars for neighbors. It is not the fault of the individual needing to find housing for $250.00 each month. It is not the fault of the landlord who (I used to rent houses in Burlington, so I know the other side, too) can't keep the building in good shape when it is torn up faster than it can be fixed. The tennants of the building need to take ownership of their environment – stop damaging the property and start demanding the current damage is fixed or no more rent will be paid. It is a two way street. The tennants need to take responsibility as well as the landlord.
adambelz
06. Nov, 2009
It really is a two-way street, I agree. Landlords and tenants share responsibility for a property like this one. The reason the locks are off the doors there is that tenants break them off.
adambelz
26. Oct, 2009
I don't see the article as a dump on code enforcers. It IS about the landlords, and it IS about the tenants.
FullStop
27. Oct, 2009
Let's do that again…
I do got????
Dendith
05. Nov, 2009
Tell me this.. Do you know the whole story or just what that one tenant explained to you? Lets assume you went on a roller coaster and someone threw up on you. Would your experience be as pleasant as the person that didn't get vomit in their mouth? Is it the fault of the owner that another customer ruined your day?
Background checks are only useful if the person taking them knows what they are looking for, or cares and what happens if you get crappy management and new management takes over shortly after and you don't know it. Maybe you just created a bad taste in someones mouth.