You missed the most important question: Is he related to Ivar???
What he should do is: Fix what's wrong. Then raise rents accordingly (or, just raise the rent in general. I'd do both) to cover expense of Re-Hab. You might not like it. But, I bet it's legal.
I've always enjoyed that building from the outside, never been in it. It's one of the fish-and-cocktail buildings that you see around the south end (so named, in my head, for the crests on the outside of them that have both a fish and a cocktail. I don't know if they were a chain at one time or something, but I love those crests.)

That whole stretch of Rainier has some killer mid-century apartment buildings that were evidently built for an affluent crowd that never materialized.

"But Roger Valdez, a developer lobbyist who's come to Haglund's defense, says the only place for landlords like Haglund to get money to improve rundown buildings is by increasing rents."

Complete and utter horseshit. The rental property market has never been stronger. Large property groups are buying up existing units with leveraged funds everyday. You have to be complete inept or corrupt to not be able to get financing for buying or upgrading rental properties. Investment bankers know how strong the market is, and the corresponding low risk. There is plenty of money available to fix up a property that is almost certainly guaranteed full occupancy.
Someone who owns so many properties that he can close one while travelling around the world certainly knows this. Also, someone who closes on a property without even knowing the condition of the place sure sounds like a SlumLord.
You know they shady. They call it Columbia City Apartments and it ain't even in Columbia City.
@4: fucking Valdez. I really can't tell if he's sort of living out Poe's law and is just doing a parody routine of what a thoroughly venal development hack would be or if he actually believes the shit he says.
I think Sawant and Grant have some fundamental misunderstandings of the role of density in helping long-term housing affordability and was ready to jump in and say something sarcastic about that, but Haglund is almost cartoonishly evil (lol at the updated Yelp review that was obviously part of settlement from a defamation suit).

I've got a friend that works in property management in Seattle. He's having to do the same thing Haglund is - evict so that an older building can be remodeled (thus impacting its market rental rate). The only difference? He gave his tenants SIX months' notice. Not hard to do with a little foresight and business planning, that is unless you're so profit driven that you have to make things as stressful as possible on your poor and disabled current tenants. Haglund deserves no sympathy - he's the sort of economic parasite, house-flipping middle-man that gives every landlord a bad name.

Also, if this building is as bad as it sounds like it is, and DPD inspected it twice, then some of this righteous election-themed anger seems like it should go there.
I blame the council for this. It's shameful to put so much restriction on building to protect rich single family homeowner's property values, then call someone a slumlord for fixing problems and raising rents anywhere close to market values. Want rents to go down? Let more housing be built. They know that, but would rather appease the half of their constituents that own their homes.
Well, see, people like Roger Valdez will defend any kind of crap that bad actor landlords do. As someone whose neighborhood got abused by the Sisley brothers for decades (with the City doing near zero except fining him and periodically shutting down boarding houses only to see them "reopen" again), I feel for these people who are paying for something but not getting basic health and security.

Sorry, defending bad landlords only opens the door for more of them.
When people buy into the "There's plenty of affordable housing in Seattle, poor people are just being too picky about where they live" line, they encourage this kind of garbage.

Keeping slums shitty is not a valid affordable housing policy.
Dude is gonna raise the rent no matter what. AND, he doesn't have to justify why. Legally, AFAIK, he can do it every year. If I owned that building id do it on purpose. Price out those who complained.
Bruce Harrell is a completely hypocritical douchebag who in 2012 argued that Seattle's rental registration and inspection code be based on landlord self certification. When that didn't fly, he argued that rental units be inspected every 10 years, instead of three, which the final version of the ordinance provides for. Vote Morales!
@1 You took the words right out of my mouth. Inquiring minds want to know, Heidi!
yes he is related to Ivar. he inherited everything because Ivar had no children. and, as all us old timers know, Ivar had a lotta clams.
Side note - the video should actually be credited to the YWCA, not the YMCA. Firesteel is a YWCA project.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.