Dozens and dozens of D.C. renters have been illegally forced from their homes by landlords seeking higher returns from their properties. These landlords have found loopholes in laws intended to protect the rights of tenants and are now evicting hard-working individuals, disabled elderly widows, and families with children from their homes.

The residents, however, are not leaving without a fight. Though no lawsuits have been filed yet, they are getting the city council and D.C. government involved in hopes of closing these loopholes and putting an end to the illicit practices of many District landlords.

The root of the problem is the hot D.C. housing market and the wave of gentrification in many once working class neighborhoods, particularly in Northwest. Landlords who hold the leases on these properties have realized that if they convert their properties to condominiums, they can easily sell them for a million dollars each and earn a much higher profit than the $500–$700 monthly per-unit rent they currently receive.

In fact, a report commissioned by the Fannie Mae Foundation found that in the first six months of 2005, 2,500 apartment units in D.C. were converted to condominiums; this is three times the number converted in all of 2004.

Renters in D.C. are supposed to have protection against quick sales that could leave them homeless. Under District law, a property owner cannot sell an apartment building before all residents are given the option to buy their units or vacate the premises.

To get around these requirements, property owners have taken advantage of another D.C. statute. District law allows landlords to insist that renters leave, after being given 120 days’ notice, when the occupied property needs repairs and improvement so substantial that residents could not safely live there during renovation. This law fails to anticipate the lengths to which landlords will go to create those unsafe living conditions.

The scheme is simple: Landlords, seeking to drive away residents, refuse to make repairs to apartments and buildings. Living conditions deteriorate, and residents either choose to leave because of the untenable quality of life or are forced out by landlords insisting that necessary repairs are too extensive to permit residency during the improvements. Then, landlords sell their vacated units to developers, making a substantial profit.

D.C. City Councilman Jim Graham (Ward One) decried the “perverse behavior” allegedly committed by these landlords and in November called for an investigation of the problem. He noted that the landlords in question had been invited to the November meeting and encouraged to explain their actions, but that landlords were not present to provide their side of the story.

He suggested that a thorough investigation of the tenants’ claims and the actions of the property owners be conducted by the city’s Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs (DCRA). DCRA director Patrick Canavan said that the department would complete a review of all the properties in question by December 30.

Also during a roundtable discussion in mid-November, residents said that landlords have refused to repair leaking roofs, broken heating units, broken front doors, and holes in walls. Landlords have allowed intense mold problems and large rat populations to expand unchecked, said residents.

Fortunate residents simply move out of their deteriorating buildings, but for many, relocating isn’t an option. Some cannot find other affordable housing. Others refuse to move from the homes and neighborhoods where their families have lived for generations. Still others do not want to force their children to change schools abruptly in the middle of the year. The residents who remain then receive “notice[s] to vacate,” demanding that they leave within 120 days to allow the property owner to make repairs.

Sometimes the grounds for these notices are fraudulent. For example, the owner of one building in D.C. gave residents a copy of a report that said the building’s asbestos levels were far too high to allow tenants to live there safely. However, it was later shown that the report described an entirely different building in Virginia. At the hearing, Advisory Neighborhood Commission 1(c) chair Alan Roth called this “a cruel hoax to vacate on behalf of ‘health concerns.’”

Assuming that the grounds for removal are genuine, District law is supposed to protect the residents affected by a notice to vacate. The landlord is supposed to pay for temporary housing and, once renovations are completed, allow the tenants to return to the property and pay the pre-renovation rent. The reality, however, is often far different.

In many buildings in D.C., landlords do not take these steps. At the November meeting, residents reported that some landlords do not pay relocation fees and instead simply give tenants $500 to cover moving costs. Other landlords indicate that they have no intention of allowing tenants to return after the repairs have been made to pay the same rent.

The toll this situation takes on residents is enormous. Linda Leaks, of the nonprofit EMPOWER DC, said that residents have become so stressed over being asked to move and attempting to find scarce affordable housing that they have had strokes, heart attacks, and increases in diabetes-related problems. Many already spend 50%–70% of their income on housing costs.

According to Natalie LeBeau of Housing Counseling Services Inc., a minimum-wage earner can afford a monthly rent that is under $400 per month. The D.C. Government Office of Public Affairs, however, calculates that the average rent in the city is $877 per month, and that rental prices rose 53% between 2001 and 2002. The possibility of having to seek new housing in D.C.’s expensive housing market is daunting indeed.

One victim of this scheme, Nancy Miranda, presented her situation to Councilman Graham in November. A working mother and president of her tenants’ association, Miranda has lived in her apartment, in a building near U Street, for decades. More than 50% of the residents in her building have lived there for more than a decade, and they have seen enormous changes in the neighborhood.

“We lived here when it was dangerous and no one in the city wanted to live [here],” said Miranda. “It is like living in the Third World. People are dirt poor and have nothing. But everyone is so happy, because they have lived in the same place for generations, and they live with grandparents, and it is really ‘home.’ Our building has this [sense of community], and now they are trying to force us to leave.”

In fact, Miranda’s apartment building borders one of the District’s most quickly gentrifying areas. It is near the U Street Metro stop, close to restaurants, bars and entertainment options. “Now it is a prime area to live in,” said Miranda, “and we are being kicked out of our home with a token $1000.”

Some nonprofit organizations are trying to help the residents affected by these eviction schemes, tackling that problem and other issues associated with affordable housing in the District. One such group is the D.C. Tenants’ Advocacy Coalition (TENAC). TENAC assists tenants by providing education and legal information and lobbying for tenant-friendly legislation. In fact, Jim McGrath, Chairman of TENAC, recently launched a new initiative to strengthen D.C.’s rent-control laws, the “TENAC Mobilization to Save Affordable Housing.”

If you would like to help with the push to provide more affordable housing in D.C., if you are a victim of the scheme described here, or if you would like assistance in setting up a tenants’ association, visit TENAC at http://www.tenac.org or call the organization’s hotline at 202-628-3688.