I think it was HIGHLY optimistic to have a budget of less than $1,000 and to think things would be pain free.
It would have been interesting if the author had added what he had expected. The article is highly factual (this happened, and then this and then this...) but he didn't add any value judgment. What was his expectations? Was it a red flag that no one on Reddit wanted to touch it? Would he do it again? If he had twice the budget, would that have changed things? etc. etc.
Why isn't this something elance can provide? You can get an anonymized contact info for previous clients of the dev. You can ping them for some questions etc.
It's a common response to the need for regulatory systems that we should "trust reputation systems" instead. This is what happens. Regulatory systems can at least be audited and held accountable. In reputation systems, absent an unforeseen innovation, you'll never be able to do better than currency.
That's how reputation has been used since the dawn of man. It has always been currency. Sites like Elance merely made efficient.
I think a possible solution for this issue would be to include third-party anonymous auditing: get someone with domain expertise to review the spec, the final product, and communications (without being given the personal details of the two other parties, of course) and give an honest rating of both sides. Obviously, this has scaling issues, but I think a decent amount of people would be willing to pay a premium for a better value proxy.