but, you can look at this another way, too.

this is the return of the landlady - who was always a violent menace to the existence of anybody remotely queer, in any way.

what i'm intuiting is this.

let's say you've got ten houses lined up besides each other, across the street from the university. they're all big houses. 5,6,7,8 rooms.

a few years ago, they had a mix of tenants: students, workers, disabled people, whatever.  but, they've all been bought up by elderly asian women from toronto (apparently.) who want to turn them into furnished rentals for students only.

the problem is that these asian kids are all poor, which is why they ended up here at the epicentre of decay, and they want to share rooms. two, three people a room. that doesn't fly in these fancy furnished houses. so, if there was enough centralized planning to match enrolment to housing (there almost certainly wasn't.), it badly miscalculated the amount of housing necessary.

so, now, every single one of those ten houses is half empty.

the solution, long term, is going to be to move the kids in some of the houses into the other ones, leaving empty houses that can be rented to non-students.

but, for right now, pretty much all of these old asian women are going to be left with a choice that nobody seems to have told them is endemic to capitalism: adjust to the market or lose a lot of money.

i'm trying to sneak into a few places that are separate units. basements. side units. etc. but, my interest in this is more about getting some of the excess demand off the market, as it will narrow down the competition for what i actually want.

of course, i'm running out of time...

i might have to serve the painter tomorrow. i'm going to review the rules.

there's two different components of a discrimination suit.

the first thing you have to prove is that you're being discriminated against, and that's the easy part - discrimination is rampant. and, trust me, i'm dealing with a ton of it, and people that don't even understand what they're doing. "seniors only" is discrimination, except that there's a loophole in the law that says it isn't - this is a rare, and singular example. i bet there's units open, though. ugh.

"muslims only" is discrimination. "indians only" is discrimination. "students only" is discrimination. and, these are the kinds of things you actually see in real life.

go to the windsor kijiji page. no. do it. you will see zero whites only ads. zero christians only ads.

the one thing that is rampant and that the foucauldians would identify as discrimination would be "employed people only" - and most people aren't even going to realize that that is discrimination, at all. but, if the disabled are not the most vulnerable people in our society, who are?

i'm an openly trans, openly atheist, obviously brown person on disability. i know that heterosexual white men think they're the most discriminated against. but, i'm at the actual bottom of any concept of hierarchy - both the foucauldian concept of it and the reactionary concept of it.

i face constant discrimination.

but, it's a lot harder to put a dollar figure on it. that's the second part - the hard part. it's easy to prove you're being discriminated against. it's very hard to prove that they're liable for any damages as a consequence of it.

so, if i call somebody up and they deny me for housing because i'm disabled, or because i'm queer, or because i'm an atheist, i have a good case that i can likely win. but, then what? if they don't owe me any money, or didn't break a lease, or didn't decide otherwise at the last minute, all i'm entitled to is a pat on the back.

"congratulations, you're a victim."

you know who gets paid? the state. the order is a fine.

and, yes: there's a couple of names i've kept track of that i think ought to write a check to the government.

i'll deal with this when i have somewhere healthy to sleep.

the attic really didn't make sense.

if i was a painter...

but, for what i do, i need a basement. really. like, it pretty much *must* be a basement, or an apartment. even an upper duplex is pretty much pointless.

i was thinking "it's clear things won't get better here. if i move there month to month, maybe things will get better.".

but, it's not rational.

it's plywood flooring. i don't even know if it's sound. i can't start moving all kinds of stuff in there. and, i don't expect it to keep the noise in well, either.

i went back and saw the smaller unit, and it was both smoky and too small.

i need to let it go...

i'm upset, but i need to keep looking.

i've wasted a large amount of my life trying to avoid wasting my life.

i've been clear that i don't drive for ethical reasons, so this isn't a serious discussion.

but, are you going to honestly tell me to live in a closet so i can afford a car? to take out for groceries twice a month?

that's retarded.

i'm still not sure if the gatekeeper is crazy or crooked, but i think i've had enough of this game. and, he played his hand, whether he realized it or not.

he has three units in the building. he seems insistent on renting the smallest one to me, indifferent or disinterested in the fact that i have the cash for the larger space, and need it for my gear. the smaller space is simply too small. and it's less than $489. i have up to $800 to spend on rent. so, why would i settle for something for less than $489? if i was going to go for a small space, i'd get something nicer for twice the price! but, that's not what i want. the point of this exercise is to get a big, affordable space that i can create in, not a small, cheap space that i can save cash in. i don't need the cash. i won't spend it. and, i don't have anything to save it for. should i sent it back to the government?

"sorry. didn't need this."

the attic unit is also open, but there's a smoker on the patio below it, and the place reeked. so, we avoided the legal discussion, because i turned the place down outright.

that's not the real point, though.

he claims the basement unit is rented, but i suspect it is actually flooded from the rain storm last week. i asked him about that initially, and he denied it. now he's claiming there's a plumbing issue.

i'm not completely convinced he's crooked, but i'm convinced he's withholding information, and not particularly keen on it.

it was the basement i wanted, but not if it's going to flood.

i'm not mad, i'm frustrated.

i'm going to nap a little and start fresh in the afternoon.

for the rest of the weekend, the appeal is a more pressing priority than apartment looking.

so, let's say you have a nazi, and he doesn't want to rent to a jew.

or a kkk member and he doesn't want to rent to an african.

should the court put the african in kkk housing? or the jew in the oven?

would the landlord burn a cross on his own yard?

no. the court process will be about damages incurred. and, if the jew can't come up with any damages, they might not get anything.

he was even a habs fan.

really.

and, my father was born no more than a few miles from where he died, in ottawa - the city he spent his whole life in. he grew up in the ritchie street projects, of mixed ancestry, but of deep francophone catholic upbringing. middle names are william & joseph, and i'm lucky i escaped that, really. christened as an infant. spoke french as a first language. went to church every week. played hockey - for the 67's, even. so, he looked like an italian jew, but he was as french canadian as can possibly be...

i think it was my stepfather that put that fence in to stop kids in the 'hood from running through the front yard.

my mom lives in ottawa.

she was born in saskatchewan.

& she's been in ottawa's system of subsidized housing since i was a kid.

yeah, it sounds fishy.

but i'm leaning more towards the idea that the gatekeeper....

...let's just say that i'm thinking he inherited his wealth.

and, if i can step in and help, i'd actually feel good about that.

i'm not a paralegal.

i can't legally represent somebody in court in the province of ontario.

but, i can help him represent himself.

the way he describes it is like this...tersely...

- tenant says he's moving himself in. just him.
- they sign.
- tenant indicates he's moving his mom in, too.
- gatekeeper says no. none shall pass.
- gatekeeper offers back deposit
- tenant refuses.

now, i need to get some more information, obviously. there's a lease. sure. but, the gatekeeper has some rights, as well. the gatekeeper can't really tear up the lease, but it can refuse entry to the mom, and then immediately evict if she goes in anyways. and, then what? does the tenant want an eviction notice on day one? i think there's a certain grey area that this falls in, where the tenant is insisting on unacceptable terms, before they move in.

again: if the tenant had already moved in, it would be very, very different. but, as it is, the best argument that the tenant has is costs related to temporary housing. remember: a body like the landlord & tenant board can only award concrete costs. it can't award psychological damages, or something. he'd have to go to the human rights board, for that.

and, see, i do suspect that the gatekeeper may unfortunately have a case he has to fight. but, he'll probably win it, so long as he gives back the deposit. that's the only concrete cost, here.

to force a landlord to rent to a tenant under these circumstances would clearly be toxic. it won't happen. so, the unit is open. and, that's my primary consideration - even if i have to help the guy win a court battle, that he's going to have to fight anyways.

my understanding of the law is that if he decides he wants me in, then the other guy is out of luck - and any legal battle is between him and the other guy. i can offer some advice, but it would ultimately have nothing to do with me.

it would be different if he already lived there...but, if i move in first, the court isn't going to move me out. i signed a lease, too. and i'm there.

on the other hand, if he changes his mind and goes back to the first guy, then i'm the one with the legal fight. and, i'm going to take it up to reasonable costs. that is, i'll drop it if he gives me the money back.

what i need to figure out is what he actually wants to do and whether he's signing this lease with intent.

so, i had a brief discussion with the gatekeeper, and he tried to go over something over the phone that i feel should be dealt with face-to-face.

he's claiming the unit is available. the thing is that that's ultimately up to him to determine, and up to him to deal with consequences surrounding it, should it not be the case. he claims he does not want to rent to this other guy. there's a mother from russia or something. whatever. i do not believe that the court can force him to rent to somebody if he doesn't want to, but it might order damages if he does. and, see, that's not my concern, if that's the case.

i want the unit, first & foremost. & if i can get a convincing assurance that the other guy isn't moving in, then i'll take the unit.

if i get the money in his hands, and the keys in mine, then those court battles don't concern me, whatever they are. if he double signs, the court isn't going to order me out, it's going to order compensation.

that said...

i can't really figure out if the gatekeeper is dealing with more stress than he's capable of, or if the gatekeeper is actually a seasoned con artist. there's evidence pointing in both directions. those red flags are still there - but the unit is still by far the best thing in front of me, too.

i'm going to have to get a careful read in tomorrow.

and, i'm willing to offer a little free legal advice out of empathy and camaraderie, even if it's not actually my own legal concern.