Recent comments in /f/washingtondc

Adventurous_Cod9854 t1_jcgvlcf wrote

Can someone make a performative outrage script to ward off these “bootlicker” guys? A literal virtue signal that says “I think it’s bad that something harmful and unfair is happening. The culprit is someone Marx would be mad at” so we don’t have to see these?

−1

Adventurous_Cod9854 t1_jcgq0wv wrote

I fully understand that money can be spent to successfully control pests, that’s my point. I don’t understand why the concept of a problem that can actually be solved is more distasteful than living in a colorful cardboard box.

3

Southern-Caregiver-5 t1_jcgp720 wrote

Wow thanks for this advice! I’m going through the same thing except it’s a duct and the noise would come and go randomly. Definitely happens during quiet hours too. The maintenance have looked at it but no solution thus far. I’m going to do exactly what you did.

3

dynospectrum7 t1_jcgotbx wrote

Unfortunately, you’re ignorant on the subject. Older buildings have pest issues. Thousands upon thousands of dollars are spent on extermination because nobody wants to live in a place with known issues, which means no rent collections.

This is coming from someone that has worked in the industry. So take that uppity transplant, ignorance, experienced bullshit elsewhere.

0

Adventurous_Cod9854 t1_jcgm0xy wrote

I guess thats capitalism. Ignorance about urban pest control (that they can be controlled, and that rats don’t infest apartments) among transplants means better quality digs for the more experienced.

2

bageloclock t1_jcgg52v wrote

Yes! And a parking spot though our street is never crowded.

I should also add I’ve always had a better experience with a landlord who owns their unit than corporate.

On top of everything else, the buildings owned by big corporations seem to nickel and dime you, plus it’s much more difficult to contest your security deposit deductions. Happened to us in our last apartment, a more dated but still corporate-owned building, and it was an unpleasant experience.

3

Excellent_Insect_270 t1_jcgd81r wrote

Right, because sales agents trying to rent out their units are going to be honest about the negative issues. Oh yeah, well, we do spray for roaches X times per month, and we have some mice problems, and this unit is near the trash chute so it’s super loud! You still want it, right?

1

Appropriate-Ad-4148 t1_jcgczaj wrote

That's true. If you're paying $2,000 a month for 2/2 that's a great deal anywhere in D.C. proper. I guess I'm saying people cast judgement on new, small apartments with nice finishes when they've never really checked the prices.

They have 2/2 950 SF units on the 2nd and 3rd floor right now for $2700-3k here.

Do you have in unit W/D or central HVAC?

https://www.monroestreetmarket.com/sightmap/

2

fvb955cd t1_jcgcchc wrote

It is a legal term with a scope that varies by Jurisdiction and type of agreement. For rentals, another way to say it is an implied warranty of habitability. Reasonable surrounding volume is a part of it, but its a very Jurisdiction and fact specific matter, and also covers things like working plumbing and electricity, the right to exclude others from your rented space, that no one else is also renting and using that space, and basic cleanliness of space controlled by the landlord.

Where it has absolutely nothing to do with volume or noise is in real property purchases. Real property comes with a covenant of quiet enjoyment if the seller is promising that there aren't any claims against the property, no disputed ownership of it, no liens, etc. You could sell a house stuck between a rooster farm and an open air flashbang grenade testing facility and have it still meet the requirements for a covenant of quiet enjoyment

7

Frndlylndlrd t1_jcgaizz wrote

It can include quiet in the literal sense, but it includes many different things relating to calm/peace rather than to noise. And exactly how much literal quiet it means is not black and white.

2