Maybe our author should scrutinize his sources slightly more before posting flagrantly sensationalist 'journalism.' It's hard to feel sorry for two people living in one of the most desirable parts of town, who it can be assumed signed a lease with the price of explicitly stated on it, knowing full well that they wouldn't be able to afford it.
The attempt to completely disassociate the fact that they have apparently stopped cleaning their apartment with the fact that they are infested with roaches is just willful ignorance, and blaming their apparent inability to change a light bulb or lack of any common sense electrical knowledge on the landlord is ridiculous.
There are obviously problems with the apartments, but what is equally obvious, though not made explicitly so by the author, is that they are being addressed by getting rid of occupants who are not paying their share of the rent and who are contributing to the overall demise of decent units.
It was even stated that occupants "are moving or being evicted" to make room for renovations which are badly needed, at a modest increase to the rent. At what point does an occupant not paying rent, devaluing an apartment, or doing both at the same time, become the fault of the landlord?
I understand and completely support the need for low- and middle-income housing in our community, but to assume that it should be the responsibility of landlords and property owners to keep prices at a bare minimum while simultaneously and continuously improving the buildings with the slight profits they might make is a logical fallacy.
The real disgrace here is that decent people who are attempting to preserve and improve their property are being denigrated by the very people who were allowed to destroy an apartment while living for free and an author who needed some fluff for the 2 paragraphs of actual news that he presented us.