I moved in Jefferson at Bellingham on the appearance of a luxury professional living complex, security of a gated community, being able to have pets and the amenities. Boy was I in for a surprise! They put me through an extensive screening process and I had to have the right income to live there because the complex had such high standards and when I moved in there is this "affordable housing" I understand that they have every right to live there but for gods sake you live in a nice place, act accordingly. The affordable housing tenants treat the place like their living in the projects. And "WE" have to put up with it! When we are paying sky high rent!!!!
They leave trash in the hall ways even before there was Valet Trash Removal. The smell that come from there apartments leaks out into the halls and they have their TV's on as loud as they can go, also they don't pick up the waste from their animals and they let their animals run all over the place. Maybe they should have a reading exam as a prerequisite upon moving in because it is obvious they don't know the rules that everyone else lives by.

User Responses
From: Anonymous	Date: 03/20/2009
Curious how you know it is the affordable housing tenants that create the havoc you mentioned..... do all of the affordable tenants wear badges? I do agree about the issues you mention, but your fingerpointing is both arrogant and ignorant. Also ironic that you point out they need a "reading exam" when your writing is riddled with grammatical and spelling errors. Ouch!
From: Anonymous	Date: 03/20/2009
good come back, but more than likely it is! :) I don't understand why there in here in the first place, why would the state help pay for luxury living anyway? I can't even afford this place myself and I make good money.
From: Anonymous	Date: 03/20/2009
Times are so very tough for everyone. I believe it is the law that 20% of the avail. apartments in any complex are designated "Affordable Housing" "Income Restrictions Apply". Their apts. are very nice as well, but do not have the "crown molding", "garden tubs", balconies, etc. There are so many of us that have lost our jobs and are trying so very hard to make ends meet (myself as well) Neighbor too noisy? A knock on the door and a smile when it is opened could do the trick. Not picking up after the dog? Hand them a bag and say you would not want them to get that $25 fine. At least we can all TRY and work things out. The trash in the bldgs. has been resolved, thank goodness. That Valet Service was a very, very bad move to even try it here.
From: Anonymous	Date: 03/20/2009
Big deal they don't get crown molding and garden bath tubs, does that give them the right to trash a nice place to live?
From: Anonymous	Date: 03/29/2009
good day
From: Anonymous	Date: 04/18/2009
I live there and it's a fun place to live. The Television's are not up all the way and the trash isn't all over the place. Neither is the smell everywhere as well. Perhaps you are just a negative person who has a noisy neighbor. Because where I live, the people are quiet and there is no smell at all. It is better than any other Apartment in the area. A nice Movie theater, Gym, Soda Machine, big pool. Even if you wanted to switch apartments because of the smell or whatever your complaint may be you can do that! They are flexible and what you said is not true. So what did you get yourself into? Maybe you should rent a house or another apartment and break your lease. This could make you happy, perhaps?
From: Anonymous	Date: 04/21/2009
This is how your management company treats it's employees, Imagine how it treats it's residents. The proof is in the pudding you might say. LINCOLN PROPERTY COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant. No. 92-1587. United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. (court) May 25, 1993. Rehearing Denied June 22, 1993. Scott A. Scher, Rubinstein & Perry, Dallas, TX, for defendant-appellant. Noemi Allesandra Collie, Dallas, TX, for plaintiff-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, JOLLY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. E. GRADY JOLLY, Circuit Judge: 1 Alvin Atkin, 63 years old, returned to work after an extended medical leave of absence only to discover that his employer, Lincoln Property Company, had replaced him with a younger employee. Atkin filed suit against Lincoln alleging that Lincoln had terminated him because of his age in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. ???????? 621-634. A jury agreed and returned a verdict in favor of Atkin for $56,250.00. The district court denied Lincoln's motion for judgment as a matter of law, and Lincoln appeals. Because we are unable to find sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict, we hold that the district court erred in denying Lincoln's motion for a judgment as a matter of law. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the district court and remand for entry of judgment in favor of Lincoln. 2 * Lincoln, a real estate company, employed Atkin as a maintenance person on September 1, 1970. When first hired by Lincoln, Atkin was 47 years old. In 1980, Atkin resigned but reapplied a few months later and was immediately rehired; he was now 56 years old. In the fall of 1986, Lincoln demoted Atkin to second maintenance man, cut his salary, and transferred him to the joint supervision of two other maintenance men at two different apartment complexes. 3 In February 1987, Atkin took a leave of absence with Lincoln following a hernia operation. Under Lincoln's leave of absence policy, an employee is entitled to an unpaid sixty day leave of absence; once the employee is placed on a medical leave of absence, he may return to work only upon the written release of a doctor authorizing the employee to return to work. On March 16, 1987, Atkin received a doctor's release to return to work, and he resumed his position with Lincoln. Atkin was by now 63 years old. 4 Shortly thereafter, on April 28, 1987, Atkin sustained an injury at work and took a second medical leave of absence. Atkin remained on this leave until he received a doctor's release on August 19, 1987. On August 24, 1987, Atkin had been on medical leave of absence for 115 days. When he returned to resume work on this day, Atkin's former position was not available because on July 20, 1987, Lincoln had hired a replacement. Lincoln did undertake efforts, however, to determine if another position was available for Atkin. After determining that there were no positions open, Lincoln terminated Atkin's employment on August 24, 1987. http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/991/991.F2d.268.92-1587.html
From: Anonymous	Date: 06/12/2009
I support this review. Seems a lot of folk are living here with their collective heads in the sand. And whoever said for this person to 'break their lease' obviously doesn't realize the cost of doing so... "There is a Movie theater" (that you can never book) and "a big pool" (that is only 4 feet deep whoopee, oh don't forget all the drunks that hang out their and ruin it for the others)...

Your thoughts? Post a response to this review. Display my response: with my username anonymously Responses appear below reviews and one response per user is permitted.

   Free estimates on moving trucks      Find apartment share/roommates