Return-Path: <nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov>
Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id f9S3OH010408; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 23:24:17 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 23:24:17 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <002601c15f67$93819da0$39a5aec7@junasfam>
Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov
Reply-To: nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov
Originator: nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov
Sender: nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov
Precedence: bulk
From: "{USER_FIRSTNAME} {USER_LASTNAME}" <csralls@earthlink.net>
To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov>
Subject: [NIFL-POVRACELIT:643] Re: Fw: Extremely Long Story About the Wrongful Eviction of Mom and 4 Kids
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain;
Status: O
Content-Length: 21931
Lines: 602
I posted it on 10-26 at about 2 AM and but it didn;t appear until 10-27
around 11:30 AM. Could have been anything in between her and there I
suppose! I usually receive immediate copies of my own post unless a list
moderator has to review it before posting.
I see my "update" on my friend's problem was posted right away. So, I assume
it was a fluke of some kind.
I am disappointed that no one on this particular list has responded to the
problem but, it is difficult to know which way to go at this point.
Thanks for your help!
Cynthia Ralls
csralls@earthlink.net
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mary Ann Corley" <macorley1@earthlink.net>
To: "Multiple recipients of list" <nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov>
Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2001 8:13 PM
Subject: [NIFL-POVRACELIT:642] Re: Fw: Extremely Long Story About the
Wrongful Eviction of Mom and 4 Kids
> Hi, Cynthia:
>
> This is an open list-- messages are not screened first for apprpriateness
of
> content. Any one who posts a message will have the message appear on the
> list. There must be a problem with the address you used--try to post it
> again and send it to
> nifl-povracelit@nifl.gov Are you sure your message didn't appear? I ask
> because your posting that's quoted here has a number (640) and those are
> assigned automatically by the computer when a message hits the list--so it
> seems like your message DID appear. I think I remember seeing it--but I'm
> not sure. . . Why don't you just post it again? It can't hurt. And if
it
> doesn't appear, let me know and I'll contact the nifl techie who might be
> able to shed some light on this.
>
> Thanks.
> -Mary Ann Corley
> .
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "CSRalls" <csralls@earthlink.net>
> To: "Multiple recipients of list" <nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov>
> Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2001 12:30 PM
> Subject: [NIFL-POVRACELIT:640] Fw: Extremely Long Story About the Wrongful
> Eviction of Mom and 4 Kids
>
>
> > Dear List Moderator:
> >
> > I sent this to the list members yet, it did not come through. Is there
> > something wrong on this end or did you feel it was inappropriate for the
> > list? If so, please let me know.
> >
> > Cynthia Ralls
> > AC*VISTA Alumni
> > csralls@earthlink.net
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "CSRalls" <csralls@earthlink.net>
> > To: "SJU VISTAnet LIst" <VISTANET@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU>;
> > <nifl-povracelit@nifl.gov>
> > Sent: Friday, October 26, 2001 1:56 AM
> > Subject: Extremely Long Story About the Wrongful Eviction of Mom and 4
> Kids
> >
> >
> > > Dear List:
> > >
> > > I am so sorry to post such a long story but, we need your help! And, I
> > know
> > > this may be off topic but, where else can this type of poverty issue
be
> > > discussed?
> > >
> > > This following post was sent to the administrative offices of our
local
> > > legal aid in efforts to get them to reconsider representing my friend
> and
> > > her children in retaliatory eviction proceedings. I wish I could send
> you
> > > all the pictures of their apt because they speak for themselves. We
have
> > > filed another court date which is tomorrow at 10:30 AM and will be
> asking
> > > for an extension of her move out date, 10-31.
> > >
> > > Please if you know anyone, anywhere that might be able to help her and
> her
> > > children, please let me know or forward them this post. I have lost
many
> a
> > > night sleep like this one worrying about where these good people are
> going
> > > to sleep!
> > >
> > > We are in the Chicagoland area, if that helps any! Thanks and
Blessings!
> > >
> > > Cynthia
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Dear Sir:
> > >
> > > Good Afternoon!
> > >
> > > I am a AmeriCorps*VISTA alumni. Also, I serve on two area non-profit
> Board
> > > of Directors and am very active within my community. I am writing to
you
> > > today to ask for your help.
> > >
> > > Since the beginning of this year, I have been a volunteer for a
> non-profit
> > > community development agency and have assisted in efforts to help
> > residents
> > > of a nearby federally subsidized apartment complex to establish a
> tenants'
> > > organization.
> > >
> > > The residents wanted to initiate some children's activities and
programs
> > > such as, a tutoring/mentoring/reading club, and wanted to find a more
> > > effective and congenial manner in which to have their grievances
> addressed
> > > by the apt. office manager and the property owners.
> > >
> > > Initially, when meeting with the apt manager, she seemed to welcome
our
> > > presence and programs but since, we believe, has stood in the way of
> every
> > > good thing we have tried to do, including installing new playground
> > > equipment.
> > >
> > > In fact, on Saturday, September 22nd, we were forced to take the
group's
> > > "Neighborhood Festival" to the streets because the apt manager and
> owners,
> > > for whatever reason, would not give us permission to have it on the
> > > property. Nevertheless, the children had a wonderful time!
> > >
> > > On or about 3-12, I contacted a City Inspector to see when they would
> > making
> > > their next inspection and whether or not they could put the apts of
> > > particular tenants on their inspection list in order to have their
> repair
> > > needs addressed. The inspector told me that, in fact, they would be
> doing
> > > their "rolling" inspection the next morning March 13th, 2001, at 9 AM.
> > They
> > > instructed me to provide them with a list of apt. numbers and that
they
> > > would include them in their inspection. They explained that they did a
> > > "rolling" inspection because they could not go into every apt. each
> > > inspection. So, I went to over to the apts. and obtained a partial
list
> of
> > > tenants whose apts needed repairs and phoned the inspector with the
> list.
> > >
> > > One tenant had been having problems with her apt roof leaking when it
> > rained
> > > or snowed for approx. 3 years yet, had not been able to get the
> necessary
> > > repairs performed. The tenant has there for almost 11 years and she
has
> > had
> > > a huge mold problem since she moved in. She has limited use of her 3
> > > bedrooms and hasn't slept in her own bedroom for a long time. She is
the
> > > single mother of 4 boys ages 7, 14, 16, the oldest being 17 or 18, who
> > have
> > > all grown up there, and their apt being the only home the youngest has
> > ever
> > > known. There are many other residents of the apts experiencing the
same
> > > difficulties of not being able to get timely repairs, as well as,
water
> > > damage and mold in their homes.
> > >
> > > As a result of that inspection, the tenant was cited for
"housekeeping"
> > > violations was given 30 days to comply. She did and the inspector
filed
> > the
> > > apt as "cleared" 5-10-01. Yet, the apt owners were cited with many
> > > violations and given til 4-18 to comply. The new city inspector for
the
> > apts
> > > has been made aware that the problem still persists and has visited on
> at
> > > least one occasion and written a letter to the manager instructing
them
> > > again to make the necessary repairs. But, as of Saturday morning,
> October
> > > 13th, when I visited the woman's apt and there was approx. 1 inch of
> > water
> > > in the lid of a plastic container which was underneath the repairs and
> > there
> > > are water stains coming through the repairs. The mold issue seems to
> have
> > > never been a priority nor to have been addressed by the City
Inspections
> > > office or the apartment management. It appears they believe painting
> over
> > it
> > > suffices.
> > >
> > > Since that initial inspection on March 13th, many things have
happened.
> > >
> > > On Friday, July 20th, the woman lost her job of 6 years. The woman had
> > > recently received a 15 day notice from the apt manager in reference to
> her
> > > July rent stating that it would expire on Saturday, July 21st.
> > > Unfortunately, the apt manager does not live on-site, is unavailable
on
> > > weekends and the office had already closed that Friday, 7-20, when the
> > woman
> > > lost her job. She had to wait until Monday, July 23rd to speak with
the
> > > manager about her job loss.
> > >
> > > When they spoke that day (7-23), The tenant and the apt manager
verbally
> > > agreed that the woman would pay her July rent plus late charge on July
> > 31st
> > > when she received her last paycheck. In response to the woman's loss
of
> > > employment and in order to adjust her August rent, the apt manager had
> the
> > > woman sign an income verification release from which the manager then
> > mailed
> > > to the woman's previous employer.
> > >
> > > When the woman received her final paycheck on Tuesday, 7-31, she
bought
> > two
> > > money orders in the amounts of $118.00 (the July rent) and $31.00 (the
> > late
> > > charge) and slid them under the apt office manager's door because the
> > office
> > > was closed. The next day, Wednesday, 8-1, the woman phoned the apt
> manager
> > > to confirm that she had received the money orders. At this time, the
apt
> > > manager told the woman that "the owners had decided not to accept her
> rent
> > > and that the case had been filed in court." Indeed, the next day, 8-2,
> the
> > > woman received a court summons to appear in court on 8-21 for eviction
> > > proceedings which had been filed July 31st by owners attorney (their
> > > daughter, we believe) despite the agreement from 7-23 that stood
between
> > the
> > > woman and the apt manager, the owner's representative.
> > >
> > > On 8-21, the woman arrived late in court due to difficulty finding the
> > > courthouse having never been there. Upon her arrival, she found that a
> > > default judgment had been entered and eviction granted. That same day,
> the
> > > woman went home and phoned our local legal aid office, and was given
> > > instructions as to how to file a Motion to Vacate the Judgment. The
> woman
> > > filed that motion on 8-24 and was given a court date of 8-31. On 8-31,
> the
> > > judge granted the woman's Motion to Vacate and a trial date was set
for
> > > 9-18-01 at 1 PM. I spoke with the owner's att. at that time and asked
if
> > > they would drop the eviction proceedings considering how long the
woman
> > had
> > > been a tenant and given the obvious miscommunication between the apt
> > manager
> > > and the owner's regarding the 7-23 agreement. The att said that she
> would
> > > talk with the apt manager about the 7-23 agreement and that "people
have
> > > lived places for 20 years and been evicted." I gave her my phone
number
> in
> > > hopes that she would call me and that whatever discord existed could
be
> > > resolved.
> > >
> > > On September 9th, I did receive a phone call from the att during which
> she
> > > said that the apt manager denies ever having any kind of verbal
> agreement
> > > with the tenant regarding paying her past due July rent or late
charges
> on
> > > July 31st. Yet, neither the apt manager nor the att can explain why
the
> > > tenant would have come in on 7-23 and sign a loss of income
verification
> > > form to have her August rent reduced and not discuss the late rent.
Even
> > if
> > > the tenant had not brought it up, I am sure as the owner's on-site
> agent,
> > > the apt manager surely would have brought up the subject, wouldn't
she?
> > >
> > > The att said "that there were other issues regarding the woman's
> tenancy."
> > > She insisted that the woman's apt damage was due to tenant neglect,
> > stating
> > > that "the holes in the walls were from body slams." When I pointed out
> to
> > > her that the woman had actually asked the city inspector to come to
> > inspect
> > > her apt on 3-13, and asked her why the woman would ask for an
inspection
> > if
> > > she and her children had actually caused the damage? The att acted as
if
> > she
> > > was shocked and could not answer that question. She further stated
that
> > the
> > > city inspector "wanted to condemn the apt." and insinuated that it was
> > > because of tenant damage. I suspect, though I have not asked the city
> > > inspector directly, that it is was because of the water damage and
mold
> > > which it appears to be a costly repair that the owners are not willing
> to
> > > undertake. In fact, just last evening I discovered there was a tenant
> who
> > > moved because of the horrible mold problem in her apt and that her
> > children
> > > were continually ill. That particular apt remains vacant. And, another
> > > tenant's roof had actually collapsed onto her child!
> > >
> > > Regardless, the att said that the city inspector had made the owners
> > perform
> > > repairs to damages caused by the woman and her children and that their
> > > approx total was $500 to $1,500 and that even if they were to drop the
> > > eviction action that they would expect the woman to pay for those
> repairs.
> >
> > > But, if the woman would agree to move that she would extend her move
out
> > > date and not give bad references to prospective landlords. I would
like
> to
> > > add at this time that all persons evicted from federally subsidized
> > housing
> > > are stamped with "DO NOT RENT TO ME" and are never able to qualify for
> > > assisted housing again.
> > >
> > > Furthermore, if the landlord wants to enforce it, persons evicted from
> > > federally subsidized housing are barred from those properties. The apt
> > > manager and the owners choose to enforce it. In the case of the woman
> and
> > > her children, this especially hurtful because they the other residents
> > have
> > > become their family after living there for so many years. It is their
> > home.
> > > I know of one other case of a mother and daughter who both had apts.
> there
> > > and when the daughter was evicted she was barred off the property. The
> > > mother had been diagnosed with breast cancer and was receiving
> > chemotherapy
> > > and also suffered a mastectomy yet, her daughter remains on the apt
> > > manager's barred list even after the mother's doctors wrote letters
> > asking
> > > she be allowed to visit and assist her mother while she battled the
> cancer
> > > and went through an extensive period of recovery.
> > >
> > > After 8-31 when the motion to vacate the judgment (which the the legal
> aid
> > > office had instructed the woman in obtaining) and was granted and a
9-18
> > > trial date was set, the woman attempted to obtain further assistance
> from
> > > your legal aid office. Yet, she was told that the landlord was within
> his
> > > rights to proceed with the eviction because her 15 day notice had
> expired
> > > regardless of any agreement the woman may have had with the apt
manager.
> > > After numerous phone calls from the woman, myself and, others, she was
> > given
> > > an appointment with one of the atts there for 1 PM on Thursday,
> September
> > > 13th. Also, we had called the owner's att to set up an appt between
the
> > apt
> > > manager and the att and the woman and the comm dev agency's
coordinator.
> > The
> > > owner's att was only available she said on Monday, September 17th at
> 9:30
> > AM
> > > at the apts. office.
> > >
> > > I took the woman to her appt with the legal aid att but was asked by
the
> > att
> > > to wait in their lobby. When we left there, the woman related that
att's
> > and
> > > her conversation to me and was as follows:
> > >
> > > The att had said that on the woman's first court date 8-21, that she
and
> > the
> > > owner's att knew each other and they actually had discussed the
woman's
> > case
> > > after the woman left (to go home and call the legal aid office). After
> > > viewing the photos of the woman's apt., the att said that they would
be
> > her
> > > defense for late or nonpayment of rent. The att also told the woman
that
> > she
> > > would speak with her Executive Director about representing the woman
and
> > > instructed her to call later that day. The woman was very encouraged b
y
> > the
> > > meeting with the legal aid att.
> > >
> > > Yet, when the woman called that Thursday afternoon she was told that
no
> > one
> > > had left any information for her and was told to call the next day,
> > Friday.
> > > On Friday when the woman called she was told there was still no
messages
> > for
> > > her from the att and to call back the next day, Saturday. And, again,
on
> > > Saturday she was told there still were no messages.
> > >
> > > On Monday, 9-17, the woman and the comm dev coordinator went to the
9:30
> > AM
> > > appt with the apt manager and the owner's att. The comm dev
coordinator
> > says
> > > that they made an offer to the woman that: if she agreed to move by
> > October
> > > 31st that they would not give her bad references or expect any payment
> of
> > > rent until her move out date (also offering to extend the move out
date
> by
> > a
> > > few days if necessary). The comm dev coordinator and the woman left
> there
> > > having made no agreement but, rather "we will think about and let you
> know
> > > tomorrow in court."
> > >
> > > From there, the woman and the comm dev coord. went to file a Freedom
of
> > > Information Act Request form with the City to obtain the city
> inspector's
> > > record of the 3-13 inspection of the woman's appt. They then went to
the
> > > Comm Dev office and called the legal aid att. The att told the woman
> that
> > > she herself could not personally represent the woman the next day in
> court
> > > because of her case load and scheduling problems and that she would
turn
> > it
> > > over to another attorney. The woman was ecstatic when she got off the
> > phone
> > > and told comm dev coord. that she would have representation in court
the
> > > next day.
> > >
> > > Yet, when both the woman and the comm dev coord called later as they
had
> > > been instructed they were directed to the legal aid's office Exec. Dir
> > (who
> > > they assumed was the attorney who the other att had given the woman's
> > case).
> > > The Exec Dir. that they had spoke with the owner's att via telephone
and
> > > that she had said that during the meeting at the apts earlier that
> morning
> > > that woman had ACCEPTED their offer. Even though the woman and the
comm
> > dev
> > > coord. told Exec Dir.that that wasn't true, she insisted that their
> legal
> > > aid agency would not be able to assist the woman. In fact, the woman
was
> > > told by the Exec Dir that it was a good deal and even when considering
> the
> > > conditions in which the woman and her children had lived for so long,
> the
> > > woman only had to pay $118.00 as if to say "you get what you pay for."
> > > Surely, the woman had misunderstood? All persons living in subsidized
> > > housing have a right to decent housing regardless the amount of their
> > family
> > > contribution..
> > >
> > > I think it safe to say that the Department of Urban Housing and
> > Development
> > > (and Americans whose taxes pay for their programs) share that view. In
> > fact,
> > > while the woman's portion of the rent was $118.00, the owner's
received
> an
> > > additional $795.00 for the woman's 3 bedroom apartment. There is no
way
> > that
> > > any person (unless they were blind) would say that even the best of
> their
> > 3
> > > bedroom apartments comes close to being worth $803.00 a month. The
> owner's
> > > are receiving almost $90,000.00 a month in mostly federal monies for
> those
> > > apartments yet, are unwilling to invest anything back into the
property.
> > > They would rather displace a struggling, poor single mother with four
> > > children than give her another apartment or make the necessary repairs
> to
> > > her dilapidated apartment. They should be ashamed of themselves and so
> > > should we if they are allowed to get away with it.
> > >
> > > The woman states that the apt manager had already told her that she
> > "didn't
> > > want to get on her 'bad' list." The woman (along with a growing list
of
> > > others) feel that by the woman's asking the city inspector to come and
> > look
> > > at her apt., she got on that list. The Retaliatory Eviction Act
> prohibits
> > > persons from being evicted for contacting a housing inspector? Yet,
that
> > is
> > > exactly what has happened.
> > >
> > > Thus, on September 18th, the woman was forced to sign court papers
> > agreeing
> > > to the "offer" that was made to her the previous day by the owner's
> > > representatives.
> > >
> > > With only 15 days to go until her 10-31 move out date, and though the
> > woman
> > > has looked for work and another place to live for her family, as of
this
> > > date, she has yet to find either.
> > >
> > > Yesterday, I spent the entire day with the woman. She and I went to
the
> > > County's State's Attorney's Office, to the local Human Relations
> > Committee,
> > > and to our Congressman's office (we will be seeing one of his staff
> > > tomorrow, 10-16). All of them have encouraged us to contact your
offices
> > and
> > > ask that you, please, reconsider representing the woman and file an
> appeal
> > > on behalf of her and her children. The State's Att's told the woman
and
> I
> > > that any appeal would need to be filed within 30 days of the 9-18
court
> > > which would be no later than this Thursday, 10-18.
> > >
> > > If there is anything that you personally could do, all of us here
> ....the
> > > woman and her boys, and all of the apt who may someday face similar
> > > issues....would so greatly appreciate it!
> > >
> > > Please contact us as soon as possible to let us know your position,
> > > suggestions and, more importantly, whether or not your agency will be
> able
> > > to help this woman and her children.
> > >
> > > Thank you in advance for your time and thoughtful consideration of
this
> > > matter.
> > >
> > > Sincerely,
> > > Cynthia
> > > csralls@earthlink.net
> > >
> > > .
> > >
> > >
> >
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jan 18 2002 - 11:33:09 EST