hi.
my landlord is taking over my apartment for personal use. i need to be
out in a few weeks. you seem to be building a monopoly on vacant
spaces in this city, and you won't rent to me because i've defaulted
on my student loans. this is effectively cutting off my right to
housing.
but, this is not a good reason not to rent to me.
my loan default is a real thing, this is true. however, because i live
on disability, there is essentially no way for the state to collect on
it. i have done my due diligence and applied for loan forgiveness, and
they have told me that although i am permanently disabled i am not
"severely" permanently disabled, which is some kind of kafkaesque
nonsense. but, what it means is that, while the loan will continue to
collect interest for the rest of my life, this has no actual effect on
my income.
the fact is that i get around $1200/month from the government, every
month. this income cannot be touched by any collection agency. nor is
it under any threat of market failure - i cannot get fired, i cannot
get laid off, and i cannot get outsourced. if you were to compare me
to a wage worker, and you were to measure my value as a tenant solely
on my ability to pay, you'd have to conclude i'm a far safer gamble
for the reason that i'm immune to market forces.
i understand that you don't want to rent to people who manage money
poorly. but, student loan defaults are going to be an increasingly
common fact of life in this city, and if you are going to command so
much of the empty rental space, you should really be approaching the
situation a little differently.
i have been in this unit for four and a half years and i have never
paid my rent late. these payments will come in every month into
perpetuity. it makes no sense to deny me housing for this reason -
because i am a model tenant.
j
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
Monday, October 30, 2017
i want to be clear about how this company works.
let's say you went to school for a few years, came out with a degree in sociology - which means you get to be a manager at mcdonalds. but, let's say you actually are a manager at mcdonalds. so, you're working a 40+ hour work week and pulling in something close to $1700 a month. but, it took you a while to get there, and in the process you defaulted on your loan.
you have a steady job. a little authority, even. you want a $900 apartment. and, why not? you can afford it.
this management company will not rent to you due to the default. it doesn't matter that you're making more than enough money. it's an inflexible position across the board.
and, they seem to be in charge of at least half of the vacant properties in the city - properties that should be occupied by low income people that probably don't have very good credit.
is this even a human rights violation? i think there's a good argument for it. but, that's not exactly at the top of my mind, right now.
i could maybe file once i find somewhere.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
let's say you went to school for a few years, came out with a degree in sociology - which means you get to be a manager at mcdonalds. but, let's say you actually are a manager at mcdonalds. so, you're working a 40+ hour work week and pulling in something close to $1700 a month. but, it took you a while to get there, and in the process you defaulted on your loan.
you have a steady job. a little authority, even. you want a $900 apartment. and, why not? you can afford it.
this management company will not rent to you due to the default. it doesn't matter that you're making more than enough money. it's an inflexible position across the board.
and, they seem to be in charge of at least half of the vacant properties in the city - properties that should be occupied by low income people that probably don't have very good credit.
is this even a human rights violation? i think there's a good argument for it. but, that's not exactly at the top of my mind, right now.
i could maybe file once i find somewhere.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
that apartment i went to see was a little small, but i expected that.
the two reasons i couldn't consider it were as follows:
1) it had a really big window on the front entrance. i want the unit up a few floors to cut off broken window access. the less windows, the better. this place had smash and grab written all over it.
2) the front entrance was a shared porch with the unit beside it. there would have been somebody chain smoking a foot in front of my door.
this is windsor.
it's becoming clear that i'm going to have to appeal, probably as soon as i get the review in the mail.
i'll need to pay rent on wednesday if i don't find anything tomorrow, which at this point is pretty much certain.
i'm also realizing that it's less that the city doesn't have rental spaces - it does - and more that the market has been taken over by this management company. what happened to windsor, that had such low prices four years ago? marda. this company is inflating prices by introducing a management layer. and, they're refusing to rent to anybody that has defaulted on their student loans. i'm almost willing to argue it's predatory. but, somebody needs to step in and break them up...
if you're a building manager, you really ought to separate yourselves from this company: they are leaving spaces empty over issues that do not affect a tenant's ability to pay, and cutting off large segments of the market. it's not sustainable. it's just going to land people with steady incomes in the shelters.
and, the city should be questioning if they have too much market power and trying to find ways to break them up.
i'm sleepier than i should be. but, hopefully i can get some progress down tonight.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
the two reasons i couldn't consider it were as follows:
1) it had a really big window on the front entrance. i want the unit up a few floors to cut off broken window access. the less windows, the better. this place had smash and grab written all over it.
2) the front entrance was a shared porch with the unit beside it. there would have been somebody chain smoking a foot in front of my door.
this is windsor.
it's becoming clear that i'm going to have to appeal, probably as soon as i get the review in the mail.
i'll need to pay rent on wednesday if i don't find anything tomorrow, which at this point is pretty much certain.
i'm also realizing that it's less that the city doesn't have rental spaces - it does - and more that the market has been taken over by this management company. what happened to windsor, that had such low prices four years ago? marda. this company is inflating prices by introducing a management layer. and, they're refusing to rent to anybody that has defaulted on their student loans. i'm almost willing to argue it's predatory. but, somebody needs to step in and break them up...
if you're a building manager, you really ought to separate yourselves from this company: they are leaving spaces empty over issues that do not affect a tenant's ability to pay, and cutting off large segments of the market. it's not sustainable. it's just going to land people with steady incomes in the shelters.
and, the city should be questioning if they have too much market power and trying to find ways to break them up.
i'm sleepier than i should be. but, hopefully i can get some progress down tonight.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
i mean, i've slept with one person in my life. she was female.
that was more than ten years ago.
and, i've turned down dozens of women since then. i'm not keeping a running total or anything, but i'd guess i've refused sex with at least 20 women. it might be closer to 50.
the opportunities with guys just don't really come up. i guess there's good reasons for that: i don't have much to offer gay men. i get hit on in gay spaces, but it's fleeting; i hate it, but it's a thing gay guys do, and it doesn't take them long to figure it out. the solution is for me to stay out of gay spaces. and, i don't have much to offer straight men, either.
it's weird. i can't state with any force that i'm into men. but, i think i can state with some force at this point that i really have absolutely no interest in women at all. not because i've sat down and made a choice, but it's just experience. i think i've been hit on by just about every kind of woman, and all i've ever done is reject.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
that was more than ten years ago.
and, i've turned down dozens of women since then. i'm not keeping a running total or anything, but i'd guess i've refused sex with at least 20 women. it might be closer to 50.
the opportunities with guys just don't really come up. i guess there's good reasons for that: i don't have much to offer gay men. i get hit on in gay spaces, but it's fleeting; i hate it, but it's a thing gay guys do, and it doesn't take them long to figure it out. the solution is for me to stay out of gay spaces. and, i don't have much to offer straight men, either.
it's weird. i can't state with any force that i'm into men. but, i think i can state with some force at this point that i really have absolutely no interest in women at all. not because i've sat down and made a choice, but it's just experience. i think i've been hit on by just about every kind of woman, and all i've ever done is reject.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
i don't know anything about rose mcgowan, besides that i think she dated marilyn manson a long time ago, but is she a known homophobe?
did this receive any criticism?
oh, i see, she's just incoherent:
but, this is what i'm saying, right: the biggest lies win the correct reaction to the gay card.
actually, i see she's been in trouble for this, before.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
it's really this call-out culture that's become disturbing, as it's turned into this hierarchical bloodsport. and, i kind of like what spacey did here, for that reason: he's managed to visibly confuse people, in what i'm willing to acknowledge is an actual accident.
these responses really reveal the way people are thinking about this, as though this is all some twisted card game - what spacey did to these people is reveal his entire hand prematurely, and they're just reacting by saying he's not playing fairly.
i don't think what spacey did here is anything more complicated or nefarious than acknowledge that he's never publicly stated that he's gay. how do you approach the situation without doing this? it's a necessity. i mean, he could have denied it all outright and claimed he's really hetero and this other guy (who i've never heard of) is making it all up, and maybe that's what some of these people wanted to hear, but any responsible reaction to the situation at all - at all - necessitates acknowledging something he hadn't acknowledged before. whether he remembers or doesn't remember, whether he accepts responsibility or not, this is now out there on the table. and, had he not said anything, you can bet you'd hear the defense from his fans: how do we know this is true, when we don't even know if he's gay? he's never said he's gay...
but, these rational considerations are not what people want to contemplate. instead, people are taking this in the form of two cards, and the proper social cues attached to them:
1) the assault card. the proper social cue attached to the assault card is to post on twitter that you believe the victim, and the accused should rot in hell. outward displays of solidarity, however meaningless in reality, are then to be ranked by social media in a total order. anger always receives tops marks, as it functions as a vicarious outlet. prizes will be awarded at the end of the week.
2) the gay card. the proper social cue to the gay card is to post on twitter that you support coming out, and you're there for people, and you don't think it matters. meanwhile, you need to send bigoted, homophobic messages to your friends. these displays of solidarity, however fraudulent, are also to be ranked by social media in a total order. the biggest lies will always receive the top marks.
so, you see what he did here? he created a contradiction. and, he did it by accident. in order to be angry at the accused, and get maximum points in the first competition, you must target a queer person and get nailed in the second. no fair!
i don't know how else you expect somebody to apologize for something they don't remember. i think he largely did this right. most people probably would have denied it.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/kevin-spacey-1.4377929
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
these responses really reveal the way people are thinking about this, as though this is all some twisted card game - what spacey did to these people is reveal his entire hand prematurely, and they're just reacting by saying he's not playing fairly.
i don't think what spacey did here is anything more complicated or nefarious than acknowledge that he's never publicly stated that he's gay. how do you approach the situation without doing this? it's a necessity. i mean, he could have denied it all outright and claimed he's really hetero and this other guy (who i've never heard of) is making it all up, and maybe that's what some of these people wanted to hear, but any responsible reaction to the situation at all - at all - necessitates acknowledging something he hadn't acknowledged before. whether he remembers or doesn't remember, whether he accepts responsibility or not, this is now out there on the table. and, had he not said anything, you can bet you'd hear the defense from his fans: how do we know this is true, when we don't even know if he's gay? he's never said he's gay...
but, these rational considerations are not what people want to contemplate. instead, people are taking this in the form of two cards, and the proper social cues attached to them:
1) the assault card. the proper social cue attached to the assault card is to post on twitter that you believe the victim, and the accused should rot in hell. outward displays of solidarity, however meaningless in reality, are then to be ranked by social media in a total order. anger always receives tops marks, as it functions as a vicarious outlet. prizes will be awarded at the end of the week.
2) the gay card. the proper social cue to the gay card is to post on twitter that you support coming out, and you're there for people, and you don't think it matters. meanwhile, you need to send bigoted, homophobic messages to your friends. these displays of solidarity, however fraudulent, are also to be ranked by social media in a total order. the biggest lies will always receive the top marks.
so, you see what he did here? he created a contradiction. and, he did it by accident. in order to be angry at the accused, and get maximum points in the first competition, you must target a queer person and get nailed in the second. no fair!
i don't know how else you expect somebody to apologize for something they don't remember. i think he largely did this right. most people probably would have denied it.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/kevin-spacey-1.4377929
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
you know, there's an easy way to figure out whether catalans want independence or not.
me? i don't care. whatever they want.
this is what happens when you try and suppress democracy, guys. it's like spain has had perpetual levels of difficulty entering the modern era due to the lingering effects of a deep-seated monarchism, or something.
this dude rajoy thinks he's a fucking bourbon.
let them vote, already. idiots...
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
me? i don't care. whatever they want.
this is what happens when you try and suppress democracy, guys. it's like spain has had perpetual levels of difficulty entering the modern era due to the lingering effects of a deep-seated monarchism, or something.
this dude rajoy thinks he's a fucking bourbon.
let them vote, already. idiots...
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
today didn't yield much - i'm going to look at something tonight that's a bit smaller but would give me an extra $50+ in my pocket a month, maybe $100 in the summer, but he got really apprehensive when i told him i'm on odsp. people have a lot of prejudices about this, and i'm fully aware of the problem of productionism, especially in a post-industrial area like this where there's so much unemployment, and it's created these hierarchies of exclusion. it's up to me to convince him that this attitude is just literal stupidity - i cannot work by doctor's order, and i have the safest check in town - but it's not the easiest thing to do. you'd think self-interest would be easier to enforce, but conservatism goes out of it's way to enforce irrationality and anti-intellectualism. i can't get fired. i'm guaranteed rent. pull your head out of your calvinist ass and recognize the superior tenancy value that i offer...
i have an appointment in the morning, but i don't even know if i'm going to go. i didn't realize that it's on the ground level. i'm curious, though.
the review was dismissed, as expected. i gave them a call about the leave date, and it hasn't changed. the review claims that i didn't raise the issue of 83(3)(c) - that's just false. i can think of at least twice that i raised it. so, the adjudicator seems like she realizes she's wrong, and is trying to back track by pretending i didn't raise the point. that's why she's not a judge, right? but, i can't review a second time.
unfortunately, the adjudicator has handed me a perfect case for appeal: she agrees that i would be right if i raised the point, then claims i didn't raise the point. but, i did raise the point. and, we can check the audio. so, now i have no choice but to appeal.
so, i'm considering launching an immediate appeal when the documents get here, just to get it out of the way. i can drop it at any time, i believe. i wasn't expecting a stay on review, but i wasn't expecting such a quick response, either. now that it's in front of me, and it's just wrong, i kind of feel like i have to act as quickly as possible.
i left a message with legal aid as well. i just want to go in and talk it over, make sure i understand the process and i didn't overlook something that's going to screw me over in the end.
but, i think that's it for listings, for the day. i should be more optimistic: if i find something i can get a appointment for every single day, i'm making good progress.
i'm going to eat. i finished the facebook section yesterday, and should close some discs tonight. i could ship tomorrow.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
i have an appointment in the morning, but i don't even know if i'm going to go. i didn't realize that it's on the ground level. i'm curious, though.
the review was dismissed, as expected. i gave them a call about the leave date, and it hasn't changed. the review claims that i didn't raise the issue of 83(3)(c) - that's just false. i can think of at least twice that i raised it. so, the adjudicator seems like she realizes she's wrong, and is trying to back track by pretending i didn't raise the point. that's why she's not a judge, right? but, i can't review a second time.
unfortunately, the adjudicator has handed me a perfect case for appeal: she agrees that i would be right if i raised the point, then claims i didn't raise the point. but, i did raise the point. and, we can check the audio. so, now i have no choice but to appeal.
so, i'm considering launching an immediate appeal when the documents get here, just to get it out of the way. i can drop it at any time, i believe. i wasn't expecting a stay on review, but i wasn't expecting such a quick response, either. now that it's in front of me, and it's just wrong, i kind of feel like i have to act as quickly as possible.
i left a message with legal aid as well. i just want to go in and talk it over, make sure i understand the process and i didn't overlook something that's going to screw me over in the end.
but, i think that's it for listings, for the day. i should be more optimistic: if i find something i can get a appointment for every single day, i'm making good progress.
i'm going to eat. i finished the facebook section yesterday, and should close some discs tonight. i could ship tomorrow.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
that was a bust.
the ad said $725 all inclusive. it's $725 + hydro. so, i'm looking at $750. he was representing a firm, and i wasn't going to take him down. this is on the extreme limits of what i can consider. is it better?
well, the existing tenant is a heavy smoker, and the apartment was full of cat shit. she's moving downstairs.
so, i would be moving into a unit with a heavy smoker downstairs that doesn't have a problem living in cat shit. that's not better - it's a $80/month rent increase with no benefit to me.
if it was just the habits of the previous tenant to deal with, i could air the place out. but, this is just a recipe for conflict. we're going to start fighting from day one. i could not get along with this person well enough to live in the same building as them.
my self-interest is not in moving into this unit. i'll have to keep looking. and, i now have fifteen days left to avoid an appeal.
today is a listings day. but i need to shower, first. yuck.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
the ad said $725 all inclusive. it's $725 + hydro. so, i'm looking at $750. he was representing a firm, and i wasn't going to take him down. this is on the extreme limits of what i can consider. is it better?
well, the existing tenant is a heavy smoker, and the apartment was full of cat shit. she's moving downstairs.
so, i would be moving into a unit with a heavy smoker downstairs that doesn't have a problem living in cat shit. that's not better - it's a $80/month rent increase with no benefit to me.
if it was just the habits of the previous tenant to deal with, i could air the place out. but, this is just a recipe for conflict. we're going to start fighting from day one. i could not get along with this person well enough to live in the same building as them.
my self-interest is not in moving into this unit. i'll have to keep looking. and, i now have fifteen days left to avoid an appeal.
today is a listings day. but i need to shower, first. yuck.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
rank the last ten presidents?
well, they're all awful. but, let's see. last ten, first, are what..
trump, obama, dubya, clinton, bush, reagan, carter, ford, nixon, johnson.
lucky cut-off. jfk was a psychopath. you're not going to like where i'd put him.
from best to worst...
1. johnson
2. clinton
3. carter
4. obama
5. trump
6. reagan
7. bush
8. ford
9. dubya
10. nixon
about average - probably the best republican of our life times, at least.
but, let's see where some of these things really go. a halfways decent nafta deal, and the avoidance of any major wars, could bump trump ahead of obama, who was actually basically a republican.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
well, they're all awful. but, let's see. last ten, first, are what..
trump, obama, dubya, clinton, bush, reagan, carter, ford, nixon, johnson.
lucky cut-off. jfk was a psychopath. you're not going to like where i'd put him.
from best to worst...
1. johnson
2. clinton
3. carter
4. obama
5. trump
6. reagan
7. bush
8. ford
9. dubya
10. nixon
about average - probably the best republican of our life times, at least.
but, let's see where some of these things really go. a halfways decent nafta deal, and the avoidance of any major wars, could bump trump ahead of obama, who was actually basically a republican.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
the way that these market advocates talk, it's like a free market in health care means you magically have unlimited resources.
rationing is at the crux of any health care delivery system. the choice isn't between rationing or not rationing, it's between being honest about it or deluding yourself - and about democratizing the systems that make the decisions.
my understanding is that they actually do have death panels in the united states. they're called insurance boards. and, we don't have those here. but, we do need to make hard choices in a broader-based sense, and that's something that no amount of funding is going to resolve.
when i look at something like the opioid "crisis", i just see a drain on the system. it's wasteful. and, my communist spidey senses go fucking nuts.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
rationing is at the crux of any health care delivery system. the choice isn't between rationing or not rationing, it's between being honest about it or deluding yourself - and about democratizing the systems that make the decisions.
my understanding is that they actually do have death panels in the united states. they're called insurance boards. and, we don't have those here. but, we do need to make hard choices in a broader-based sense, and that's something that no amount of funding is going to resolve.
when i look at something like the opioid "crisis", i just see a drain on the system. it's wasteful. and, my communist spidey senses go fucking nuts.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)