Dear Readers:
The last few days there has been quite a bit of anger, frustration and charged words expressed through this blog.
It has always been my intention to provide a forum for tenants to express their feelings, good and bad, about living at the Jefferson. For obvious reasons I wish to remain anonymous. For the same reasons, this blog offers those posting to it the same opportunity to remain anonymous.
Obviously I don’t make any money, gain any real power, or receive any benefits by maintaining this blog. I have nothing to gain by the creation of this blog except a better living situation for fellow tenants and myself. It works by a simple premise—giving a voice to the people that live in this building, strength in numbers!
In maintaining this blog I don’t sway opinion by the inclusion or the omission of posts or of peoples ideas. For the most part I am like a game show host tossing out ideas, questions, and information. The posts then take on a life of their own. I don’t really care what the points of view of the posts are, that’s not my concern. What I do care about is that management is hearing the voice of the tenants, and in lieu of that, that the tenants at least hear each other’s voice.
It is not my intention to create descent, anarchy, anger or any other negative outcome through this blog. With that in mind I feel we should all take a deep breath and begin to take a forward-reaching approach toward rectifying the resident discontent that apparently exists in great amounts.
So where are we?
There appears to be a group in the building who want to address tenant concerns directly with management. They might be a good starting point. Melanie has expressed on this blog that she encourages tenants to create a residents association, and a willingness to meet with them if the exchange is respectful and mutual. I think those are reasonable terms.
Melanie, I hope you will assist those folks that step forward with creating a workable system. It can’t happen without your cooperation. I also want to encourage the resident group to be reasonable and non-confrontational, but I’m sure none of this will be a problem.
There have been many people posting on the site that they would be willing to be part of a tenant group. So it looks like all that is left to do is find someone to organize the interested parties and schedule a regular meeting time with Melanie. I would suggest giving it a couple of weeks to solicit a good representation of resident concerns and prospective volunteers.
The Salt in the Wound
One of the issues that raised the greatest deal of ire is the perceived lack of customer service from the front office. It shouldn’t be hard for management to understand that the residents don’t feel respected during their dealings with the entire staff of the Jefferson and Axiom. If there is some lack of clarity in understanding their concerns, simply read this blog.
I’m sure that managing a large apartment building has its challenges and certainly its thankless moments, but I’m sure you’ll agree that a large part of their job is customer service. I have to believe that if management devotes the greatest amount of their attention to pleasing the building’s tenants, that all of their other duties will be infinitely easier.
Melanie, in your letter to this blog you wrote:
Redacted: See posts below:
I've redacted the gray text below because a reader has pointed out that I got the gist of Melanie's comment wrong and I agree with the reader.
There is currently a posting on the blog that talks about the safety of the neighborhood. So we have a hard time understanding those that are concerned about the safety of the neighborhood but feel like our guest policy is too stringent.
It’s subtle, but I think this statement is very exemplary as to how people feel toward management. In this statement you seem to be saying that according to the posts tenants are making, we feel it’s safe in the neighborhood, yet we’re worried that the sign-in policy doesn’t keep us protected well enough. Is that a correct reading of your comment?
It seems as if you’re saying that people don’t know what they’re talking about. May I suggest to you that tenant feedback not be met with by questions or excuses? In customer service the customer is always right. Right? Ultimately this is an issue of respect and when people feel disrespected you can certainly appreciate that they might become very angry.
Updated text:
What I was trying to say, albeit having it back-ass-wards and expressing it inadequately, was that there is a feeling, at least amongst the people I hear from, and from those that post here, is that management, and in particular Melanie, either ignores them, explains away their concerns, or gives an excuse. I also should mention that I am not basing this just on anecdotal information, as I have had a wide range of experiences with Melanie going from good to bad.
I would also like to mention that I have nothing personal against Melanie, or anyone else in management, and that my impression of her during our interaction has mostly been favorable, and I have no axe to grind, so this is not pick on Melanie time.
When you're in charge though, you receive the majority of the negative attention, deserved or unjust, and the readers of this blog, or should I say some of them, unload on her regularly. I would point out that, as Melanie also mentioned, many of her detractors may just be disgruntled. That is certainly a possibility.
Safety vs. Perceived Safety
The sign-in policy at the desk has created the most anger in the shortest period of time than any other issue I have come across on the blog. There are a number of people on both sides of this issue and nobody is wrong. The implementation of this policy was in part due to some violent altercations in the building perpetrated by tenant’s guests and, if memory serves me, an outsider on one occasion.
There are those that feel that simply having a concierge at the desk taking ID and the names of visitors isn’t a real safety measure. At best it only creates the “perception” that “something” is happening to protect the residents and that’s not the same thing as “being” safe. I am personally glad that there is at least some sort of policy in place, but I have to admit, I don’t think the measures implemented are adequate. Was this policy put in place after some real thought? Was it conceived in the rental office or planned by a professional specializing in building security? That’s something that all buildings, especially in this city, need to consider. We live in a new era. Think back a month to the Discovery building being taken hostage by one disgruntled person. So there needs to be some measure of real security in the building. I suggest hiring a building security professional to assess the situation.
There are an equal number of folks in the building who feel that the policy works and that the amount of intrusion on personal liberty is minimal and worth it. It really only takes a moment to show ID and sign your guests in. Certainly the amount of time it takes isn’t worth spoiling your day.
Those opposing the policy also feel that they are being treated like children or are being made to pay for the actions of a few bad apples. Those supporting the policy feel that if that’s what it takes, so be it.
That’s the crux of the matter. We need to have some resolution to these problems and we need to have an ongoing dialogue. Above all, tenants want a voice! It’s time they had one and saw some tangible results.
-TJ
