So clearly, the previous rent wasn't high enough since it led to foreclosure...

Interesting concept that the tenant has found an apartment way under the market and the tone of the article suggests the new owner should continue to subsidize them.  

If those units were inspected by inspectional services most would not pass.....it funny how the "money changers" seem to find another way to victimize the poor.  

It would have been nice if the reporter gave us some math on the Romero's Unit so we can all make a reasonable opinion. Is City being unreasonable? How can we know she dosn't tell us the number of units, the purchase price, taxes etc.

Or maybe she did't want to show the other side. The omission makes the article susbect.

If someone who is working full time cannot afford the rent in a cheap apartment in Boston, it is time to raise the minimum wage.

Being a landlord in MA is no picnic. I did it once years ago, along with a few others, I made some money, but never again. Tenants can be a PITA, most are fine, but the bad ones, yikes, I still hate to think about. A tenant can essentially stop paying rent, for whatever reason, months and months can go by, very little recourse for the owner. The laws tilt toward the tenant, and the court system is so slow. Evicting someone takes a year, 12 months of rent gone, and, of course, during that year, the tenant couldn't care less about the condition of the property. Maybe this is best left to big outfits like City Realy. As for this particular case, not knowing the fair market value of the apartment (maybe fail by Ms. McKim), impossible to know the just outcome. The current occupants seem like good tenants, I'd rather reliably get $1000/month from a responsible, hardworking tenant than risk an extra $300/month on some loser. But, hey, maybe that's why I had a bad experience. 

Why is this even a discussion?  Rent control was repealed back in the mid-1990s.  A landlord can charge whatever rent the market will bear.  If he raises the rent too high he will have a vacancy problem.  If the rent that the landlord charges is too low he is leaving money on the table.  If rents get high enough then developers will build new rental housing and the new supply will depress rents.  The solution to high rents is high rents.  Rental housing is a commodity like any other.  If the rent is too high in Dorchester then move to Mattapan or Maverick Square.

You can bet that the taxpayer is subsidizing this family one way or the other. 

Interesting story when viewed alongside an earlier New York Times piece about the city trying to develop land on or near public housing:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/12/nyregion/plan-to-lease-open-land-at-housing-projects-stirs-concern.html

And I agree with previous commenters that a little more context would have gone a long way in this article.  E.g. How big is this apartment?  Exactly where is it?  What are the neighbors' rents like?  Much like in the Times article, it sounds like there are quite a lot of people living in up-and-coming Boston neighborhoods expecting (hopelessly, in my opinion) to be able to hold back a rising tide of gentrification.

While I can certainly understand the argument for income diversity in any area, it does seem to put residents in the awkward position of opposing needed improvements to neighborhood services on the grounds that it will "make people want to live there" (as if that's a bad thing).  Or, in this case, the very sort of private investment that is needed in order to revitalize a blighted area.  Better to look for ways to improve people's incomes (like subsidizing college education or construction jobs building city infrastructure!), rather than the Wal-Mart effect of considering poverty inevitable and then trying to cater to it.

At any rate, it would have been nice to see this article delve into the larger debate a bit.  Or at the very least acknowledge it.  Context, in this case, was sorely lacking.

Interesting discussion, however, why has the Globe not reported on the MAJOR Financial News since the weekend, the bank bailouts (possibly taxing depositors' money) in Cyprus?

6 people in an apartment for $1300...where can you get that deal? The water and property taxes alone must be very high...not to mention maintenance.  I knw someone living in a shoebox alone for that in Malden, just a few miles away.  If we made people feel personally responsible for themselves, then these articles wouldn't even be written anymore.  How big must this apartment be? At least a 3 bedroom...this is sticker shock because these people are going from zero to $1300...can't raise a family of 6 on one minimum wage income (and you shouldn't expect to)...perhaps they should have considered that.  The landlords have a right to make a profit...they are not the bad guy that this article pretends that they are. These people should move if they can't pay, but instead they are going to stay rent free for as long as they can...and the landlord has to keep paying the mortgage, taxes, water bill and any utilities they are responsible for. 

The article implies that the tenants have not paid rent in months and thuis is just "not used" to paying rent.    What this article, obviously written with the assistance of the bank and its lawyer, doesn't discuss is that the city has not been enforcing the houslingg code for years and that the landlord, obviuosly in foreclosure for a while, has been making even less repairs than usual; in other words, it has not made any repairs for a long time.  

Nowhere does it say that this couple do not pay their rent. They just cannot afford another $300. There are two adults with 3 small children and it's probably a 2 bedroom. The article doesn't speak to the size or condition. $1800 rent is a lot of money for anyone person or couple with children not making $75K. Even with that, if they have to pay for a car to get to work, etc. then there is nothing left over. Chelsea is not the Back Bay or the trendy North End where closets rent for $1800. As a former landlord, I can truly say that I'd prefer a good tenant to a lousy one with more money.

Inocencia Perez and Gerardo Romero. They have three children. Just wondering with two different last names are they married?

Their rent is not $1800. It has gone from$1000 to $1300. Read the article.

The new owners picked up that property for a song so it's not like they haven't made a profit already.  And now they have all this bad publicity to deal with.  And if that apartment is empty for 3 and a half months there goes whatever increase that 300 would have given them for a year.  An increase of $50 to $75 a month rent over the next couple of years would have accomplished the same thing without the bad press and loss of income.  Slow and steady wins the race.

See the documentary "American Winter" on HBO.  And no, America isn't just about making a profit.  It's about compassion, honesty, courage, decency, fairness, quality of life, liberty and justice for all - not just for a few!

1800 is fair market in chelsea? i would say most are between 600 and 1100.

Gouge-a-rama.

Get one of those Auntie Zeitune project apartments.  Oh wait.  You have to be an illegal alien to get one of those Auntie Zeitune project apartments.  Oh, wait.

Ok I just had to reread the article because some of your comments are outrageous. So from what I understand, this family lives in an apartment building who's owner (not them) stopped paying the mortgage and hence the bank sold the property to City Realty for a bargain price. They have never missed a payment and they aren't asking to not raise the rent, but to only raise it by $100-150. Wouldn't you be upset if you had to shell out an extra $300 a month?

Legally, these "People" have the right to raise rent. Ethically it is a f***ing crime. Period.

If they can't afford market rate rent and are eligible, they should get a section 8 voucher.  That would make up the difference between what they can pay and what the apartment actually costs.  I'd bet that the new owners have a LOT of work to do on the whole building since the previous owners couldn't afford the mortgage, they also couldn't afford basic maintenance.  Not to mention water bills, taxes, etc, which the new landlord must pay.