Be sure to read the Page 7 article in The Woodstock Independent (TWI) this week (September 23, 2009) about the variance handed out by the Woodstock City Council for Cunat's Autumnwood Apartments.
TWI reports that, when Cunat bought the property, the seller's prior illegal conversion of six tiny spaces (were they utility closets or ???) into "efficiency" apartments escaped their attention. Now, just how does something like that happen?
Cunat ought to have known of the legal size requirements of living units; it's not like they are inexperienced in the apartment-rental game. They must have done measurements and unit counts as part of their due diligence. According to the article, Councilman Dick Ahrens said, "There's certainly a difference between a 351-square-foot apartment and a 500-square-foot apartment."
Councilwoman Julie Dillon said something about 19'x19' room and a $650 rental rate in the same sentence. Is Cunat renting the 361 sq. ft. "efficiency" apartments for $650??? No wonder they wanted the variance!
According, again, to the paper Councilman Mike Turner asked Police Chief Lowen about the "experience of the Woodstock Police Department" with the apartment complex. The answer, according to the paper, was that the apartment complex "management has a strong working relationship with the department" and "they work hand-in-hand with the permanent beat officers to address any issues that come up."
Mike, that's not an answer! Did you ask a follow-up question to get the answer to your first question? The answer should have been, "In the past 90-180-365 days we have had "x" number of calls to that apartment complex, and the calls have included (the types of calls)."
I have my own opinion about whether a $650 monthly rent ($7,800/year!) for a 361 sq. ft. efficiency apartment is an "affordable option" during times of economic hardship.
Is there an occupancy limit for an efficiency apartment? Is it ever checked?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment