The resident is responsible for paying their individual water billThey receive a bill from a third party companyThe resident is correct that there is a day period to pay the bill on time without a late chargeThe resident has been given two credits for late charges in the past even though the payment was lateThere is no plan to alter the original billing policy at this time that was agreed to by all parties at the time of move in
Wallick Communities has chosen to make this dispute a personal oneI do not appreciate being called, in effect, a liar.Most if not all of the persons "in my circle" are well aware of the multitude of issues at Starr High StudiosIn fact, a few of the aforementioned persons have advised that I should take Wallick Communities to court over themI had no desire to do such a thing because I believed in the good will of peopleThese people, however, clearly have no good will about them at all [redacted] ***, not [redacted] (these people apparently can't even get simple names right, but that's not surprising) is currently still living at the Starr High property and while I would have liked for him to speak up regarding these issues, as he is currently experiencing them, he has chosen not toI can only assume that it is for fear that Wallick Communities will retaliate against him for it (i.e.: evicting him for no reason), which would also not be surprising.Unfortunately for me, I cannot provide any "evidence" of my claims, as any evidence I would have is contained within a property at which I no longer resideThe only person who can do that is one [redacted] who, for reasons unfathomable to me (considering that he complained about it way more than I ever did), has chosen not to pursue the matter at **l any further.Forgive me if this response seems to contain malice, as I am sure it does, but I am deeply offended at the insinuation that I am somehow lying about my own experiencesThe only logical conclusion that I can come to is that Wallick Communities is a money-hungry operation with no sense of humanity at allIt is mypersonal belief that they should be stripped of their Revdex.com accreditation, as they clearly are very undeserving of itI trusted these people to provide me with safe and healthy housing, and that is the one thing that they did not do"Start With Trust", right? You can't do that with any Wallick Communities Property
Applicants applied January 7, The application was approved and a tour of the property was scheduledThe applicants liked the unit they toured and wanted to proceed with the move in but not for an additional daysThe manager explained that would require the $depositThe applicant agreed and tendered the deposit on January 27thOn March 6th , the applicants showed up to complete the move inAt that time they pointed out several items of concern including the carpet not to their liking, the use of traditional door stops with the removable bumpers because the presence of a toddler and a few other itemsThe applicants stepped out to discuss the apartmentThey came back in and asked if they could have the weekend to think some moreOne of them came back the following week and indicate they were not taking the apartmentDuring that time the manager had already replaced the carpet, changed all the door stops, Replaced the countertop as well as some other cosmetic itemsThe applicant was at that time informed that they would forfeit the deposit because of the length of time and our loss from not renting to someone else
I have reviewed the entire caseThe question at hand is the application for residency at Starr High StudiosI did note that Ms [redacted] had resided at Starr High previously with a roommateMs [redacted] by herself moved out and had her name removed from the leaseSome time later she applied for another apartment by herselfThe application was processed and upon completion it was determined that the amount of verifiable monthly income was insufficient to meet the minimum income to rent guidelines in place and the application was rejected for this reason
The resident is responsible for paying their individual water billThey receive a bill from a third party companyThe resident is correct that there is a day period to pay the bill on time without a late chargeThe resident has been given two credits for late charges in the past even though the payment was lateThere is no plan to alter the original billing policy at this time that was agreed to by all parties at the time of move in
Wallick Communities has chosen to make this dispute a personal oneI do not appreciate being called, in effect, a liar.Most if not all of the persons "in my circle" are well aware of the multitude of issues at Starr High StudiosIn fact, a few of the aforementioned persons have advised that I should take Wallick Communities to court over themI had no desire to do such a thing because I believed in the good will of peopleThese people, however, clearly have no good will about them at all [redacted] ***, not [redacted] (these people apparently can't even get simple names right, but that's not surprising) is currently still living at the Starr High property and while I would have liked for him to speak up regarding these issues, as he is currently experiencing them, he has chosen not toI can only assume that it is for fear that Wallick Communities will retaliate against him for it (i.e.: evicting him for no reason), which would also not be surprising.Unfortunately for me, I cannot provide any "evidence" of my claims, as any evidence I would have is contained within a property at which I no longer resideThe only person who can do that is one [redacted] who, for reasons unfathomable to me (considering that he complained about it way more than I ever did), has chosen not to pursue the matter at **l any further.Forgive me if this response seems to contain malice, as I am sure it does, but I am deeply offended at the insinuation that I am somehow lying about my own experiencesThe only logical conclusion that I can come to is that Wallick Communities is a money-hungry operation with no sense of humanity at allIt is mypersonal belief that they should be stripped of their Revdex.com accreditation, as they clearly are very undeserving of itI trusted these people to provide me with safe and healthy housing, and that is the one thing that they did not do"Start With Trust", right? You can't do that with any Wallick Communities Property
Applicants applied January 7, The application was approved and a tour of the property was scheduledThe applicants liked the unit they toured and wanted to proceed with the move in but not for an additional daysThe manager explained that would require the $depositThe applicant agreed and tendered the deposit on January 27thOn March 6th , the applicants showed up to complete the move inAt that time they pointed out several items of concern including the carpet not to their liking, the use of traditional door stops with the removable bumpers because the presence of a toddler and a few other itemsThe applicants stepped out to discuss the apartmentThey came back in and asked if they could have the weekend to think some moreOne of them came back the following week and indicate they were not taking the apartmentDuring that time the manager had already replaced the carpet, changed all the door stops, Replaced the countertop as well as some other cosmetic itemsThe applicant was at that time informed that they would forfeit the deposit because of the length of time and our loss from not renting to someone else
I have reviewed the entire caseThe question at hand is the application for residency at Starr High StudiosI did note that Ms [redacted] had resided at Starr High previously with a roommateMs [redacted] by herself moved out and had her name removed from the leaseSome time later she applied for another apartment by herselfThe application was processed and upon completion it was determined that the amount of verifiable monthly income was insufficient to meet the minimum income to rent guidelines in place and the application was rejected for this reason