Best. Craigslist.
Ever. For reasons too complicated to go into, I'm back on the rental housing market, and it's basically impossible to find anything on Craigslist because of all the listings responding to, as far as I can tell, a surging demand that exists only in urban legend.
Yeah, I just moved to DC on the 20th and finding (real) rental apts on there was substantially more annoying because of all the innaug spam.
I for one would be very interested in a "why I'm back on the rental market" story if it involves a sucky landlord (so we can all commiserate) or roommates with, say, forgetting-to-flush issues.
Megan,
Since you had a great Christmas this year I assume you have a good relationship with your parents (which, if true, is another blessing to be thankful for). If so -- and since you can telecommute as a blogger -- why not move in with them for a year or so and bank the money you'd spend on rent? I can understand if you needed to be in D.C. because you were frequently interviewing political figures, but that doesn't seem to be the case -- you don't do much reporting. You can always take Amtrak down for occasional meetings. In any case, if you wanted to start doing some reporting, as a finance blogger, Manhattan would seem to be a good location for that. Plus, you could meet your pal Ta-Nehisi for lunch occasionally if you lived in New York.
What say you? I hope you aren't worried about any 'stigma' of living with your folks in your thirties. Who cares what anyone else thinks. You could always answer questions about your living situation the way a buddy of mine did when he was living with his parents in his early thirties: just tell them you're living with two older roommates.
Searching with "-inaugural" and "-inauguration" doesn't weed them out?
"You are being selfish and are abusing this community."
But...but...I thought pursuing one's self interest was the highest moral principle...
Urban legend ... you mean there really aren't going to be four million people coming to DC to watch the Inauguration? I'm shocked!
Of course, the fact that there won't actually be four million people also means that hundreds of thousands of them won't be trampled and suffocated to death, as would happen if four million actually showed up.
Be reasonable. You have to inaugurate him before you can impeach him.
My personal favorite was
"An Apology: To the Girl in the Parking Garage"
Christ. What, your precious market is giving you a hard time? Give the whining a break.
"I for one would be very interested in a "why I'm back on the rental market" story if it involves a sucky landlord (so we can all commiserate) or roommates with, say, forgetting-to-flush issues."
ugghhhh. I completely agree.
I'm trying to be responsible and not fall into housing purchasing craze which so many people fall into.
But with renting you definitely have to deal with a lot of crap. It's very tempting to say, "screw it!!! I'm buying."
Christ. What, your precious market is giving you a hard time? Give the whining a break.
Craigslist isn't a market; it's a case study in the abuse that's inevitable when scarce* resources are allocated by non-market means.
That asterisk was originally intended to point to a footnote regarding why ad space on Craigslist is a scarce resource even if its servers have plenty of space--because people can only read so many ads and every new ad dilutes the amount of attention paid to the rest--but I figured it didn't need explaining. But now I have to explain the asterisk I forgot to take out.
The surging demand doesn't just exist in legend - it also exists (or existed) in irresponsible newspaper reporting. I saw articles on it in the Washington Post.
Too complicated = too embarrassing.
Nick Gillespie has a crawl space he'd be willing to rent you for a couple grand a month, if you don't mind human remains.
But with renting you definitely have to deal with a lot of crap. It's very tempting to say, "screw it!!! I'm buying."
With buying you have to deal with a ton of crap as well. And if you get stuck with crappy neighbors it's far harder to move.
I agree with Ho Ho Ho @1:48 PM. The true story is probably quite simple, but the tale is probably of an embarrasing nature. She will eventually tell it, after she formulates the correct way to describe it and lay the blame. And a host of comments will follow, saying she is "foolish" or "silly" or "naive".
But I think we need the true story anyway as this is a particularly boring day.
I had to find a DC sublet for 5 months, Jan-May and it was unbelievably annoying to use craigslist. Somehow, I managed, but only through extraordinary patience. At least 90% of the listings were for inauguration housing. (Even though it's technically the right place for it, I really wish craigslist would have created a separate section for inauguration housing.)
In this case, too complicated=we still might have to sue.
Having been both renter and owner, I am firmly of the opinion that the crapload is heavier, much heavier, on the owning side.
Megan, if you might have to sue, don't move out. If you think your case is good, stop paying rent, then let your landlord sue you through eviction proceedings. Then countersue him for what you think he/she did wrong. But if you move out, you no longer hold the eviction card to negotiate with. Moving out is a terrible idea. Make your landlord sue you. Stay.
We never moved in, precisely because it wasn't habitable. 'nuff said for now.
Pity you're not in southern Wisconsin. I'd gladly rent you a beautiful little 1900 sq ft townhouse I've been advertising for a couple months -- and, of course, you'd get my special libertarian discount.
Instead, I'll just share a "Great Moments in Landlord/Tenant Relations" story I had from a college tax teacher. A friend of her husband's had a nonpaying tenant (an old woman) in an Eastern state where it was very hard to evict people (had to go to court several times, pay a lot of money). After six months of nonpayment, he went to the tenant and told her "Look, I will give you $2,000 to move out." Her reply? "No way, if I move I'll have to start paying rent."
So the landlord is at a bar, telling this story, and there was a guy there who was due to report to prison in a week. He wanted some prison money, and so he offered to get the woman moved out for half what the landlord would have paid the woman, $1000. The landlord agrees (they make no terms as to methods, of course). So the guy breaks into her apartment, tells her she better move, and breaks her arm to prove he's serious; she moves out in terror, he pockets a grand, and the landlord gets a paying tenant.
Is this a classic failure of government regulation, or what?
Talldave, it's interesting you bring up such a story. A sheriff in a city close to me announced that he no longer will allow evictions to occur during this economic downturn.
What a sweet, heartwarming Christmas-time tale. Thanks for sharing.
It is not, technically, a failure of gov regulation.
However it is definitely a failure of the courts system. I am currently in the tail end (or hopefully, past) of a long and bitter dispute in which many people concluded there was no legal way to have a contract enforced, to the extent where somebody seems to have successfully stolen a 200 apartment building.
He has a lease on the entire building, has stopped paying rent, and without using similar methods to that described above the multitude of small landlords (who own one to three units each) have basically had their property stolen.
"It is not, technically, a failure of gov regulation.
However it is definitely a failure of the courts system."
A family friend who has invested in commercial real estate for decades avoids residential real estate precisely because of this. He says that if a court hears a dispute between him, an out-of-town landlord, and a local tenant with a hard luck story, the landlord is likely to get the short end of the stick. So he sticks with renting properties out to businesses, since courts, in his experience, are less sympathetic to business owners who don't pay their rent.
Re: A sheriff in a city close to me announced that he no longer will allow evictions to occur during this economic downturn.
In cases where people are renting properties that are in foreclosure, and who are current on their rent, I think this wholly justified and should be formally codified into law. A foreclosure should leave any existing lease intact and the renter untouched, assuming they are current on their obligations. Let the forecloser inherit the lease until its term is complete.
Oh, well, crud, you can't talk about it then. But still interested, especially if "not habitable" means "not habitable except to local wildlife, of whom it was beloved" or "not habitable unless you were willing to shack up with the squatters."
You should strongly consider looking to this dude for inspiration. Do it right and it will be an endless source of posts like the one up there on credit cards, and you may never need to shop for kitchen equipment again either.
All of the so called progressives who allegedly think so much of the poor and misfortunate are blowing 1000s of dollars to come to the inauguration. If they actually cared about anyone but themselves, they would, in the midst of a terrible recession, perhaps put that money to a more useful purpose like helping the less fortunate. Worse still, the crush of up to four million narcissists wanting to see history is likely to bankrupt Washington DC, a city with a large poor population, broken schools and about 4 million better things to spend money on than ensuring that the entire stuff white people like population can safely visit the city to see history.
This thing is going to shut down the city and cost millions at a time when we really don't have millions to spend. If Obama were half the person his more deranged supporters claimed he was, he would discourage people from coming and scale the whole thing back. We are in the middle of two wars and a huge recession. Don't we have better things to do than this? Actually, the people who are coming really don't because it has always will always be about them. Hell, Obama is just a prop and the excuse for them to live their own fantasy world of seeing history whatever that is. UGH.
"I agree. The last thing DC needs is a massive group of people injecting "1000s of dollars" into its economy, spending money on hotels and taxis that employ the "poor population" as cleaners and drivers, buying food and water from local vendors, etc. After all, everybody knows a dollar spent by narcissists is worth less than a regular dollar."
Most people will not be here for very long. The city is facing a huge shortfall managing the crowds. It is not a boon for the area at all. If it were, DC wouldn't asking for a preliminary Stafford Act declaration to get emergency aide. You can southe your conscience all you like with dreams of the multiplier effect, but the innauguration is going to hurt the very people Obama supporters claim to care about.
Instead of using Craigslist, may I recommend Rent.com? It's worked well for me both in Minnesota and here in the DC area.
John,
Its all in the externalities. In other words, the large crowds generate large concentrated costs for the city (in terms of extra policing, and other infrastructure costs), but the benefits are spread in a diffuse manner to all sorts of businesses (hotels, taxi companies, restaurants, etc.). The purely lassiez-faire thing to do would be to utilize the Coase Theorem and work out a deal with the businesses where by the city gets a cut of the additional profits. Now, since that's impracticable, I'd argue that the responsible course of action would be for the city to use a temporary tax hike or special levy to cover its expenses. Of course, the city sees free federal money on the table (in the form of Stafford Act monies) and decides to reach for that, instead.
Frankly, this says more about the irresponsibility of D.C. government than the irresponsibility of "narcissistic liberals."