"Must be an option taken knowingly" is a hell of a defence, considering it just means the landlord can't legally lie to the tenant and steal hundreds or thousands of dollars from them. Is that what you consider a robust consumer protection?
If DeSantis wins
- Thread starter CastletonSnob
- Start date
It's literally an option being provided to allow people who can't afford a security deposit to get into housing sooner, with rules that mandate they be able to just pay the security deposit at any time to stop the fees, passed with bi-partisan support. Political angling is the only reason to be against it.
Yes, predatory deregulation is often defended by appeals to greater choice, and Democrats do indeed also have a history of acquiescence to corporate predatory behaviour.
Just so we're clear here, you get a deposit back (or should do, most of it). So for instance $50 a month "fees" over years is worth a great deal more to a landlord than a $1000 deposit, much of which will likely end up returned. Not least because in order for a tenant to stop the monthly drain, the landlord gets the deposit in the end as well, plus whatever fees they've pocketed up to that point.
Also, this sounds potentially open to abuse. If landlords can deliberately hike the security deposit this means they can gouge some tenants "fees" pretty much forever for additional profits. Because let's face it, you know and I know that if they can do this and it makes them money, then many of them will.
What is the functional difference between that and just charging higher rent? There is nothing but market forces limiting the rent being charged, if the landlord says "you can pay a million dollar deposit or the monthly fee", what it means is "I don't do security deposits, but I charge more in rent than my competitors." That was always an option, it's perfectly allowed to not require a security deposit and charge more. Landlords don't want to do that: good renters aren't going to be attracted to that model, and bad renters could leave them empty handed without the deposit and then disappear. There are additionally changes in the bill to how rentals can be insured to incentivize this practice, because it otherwise goes so against the interest of the landlord that nobody would even offer the option. The whole thing is to benefit the people who need to rent.
Fees are supposed to be costs incurred for specific services, not payment for board. If a landlord is utilising them as a method of making more money from board, then they're already abusing them.
What interests me more about laws is not what they are intended to do in theory, but what they actually will do.
You could think of this a bit like tax rates and tax liabilities. So for instance one can talk about corporation taxes being a certain value, but the liabilities that it is actually paying are what really matter. As a result, I'm much more interested in what all those cunning property owners are going to squeeze out from the law rather than trust the headline concept.
There is a bill that from your description doesn't do something that couldn't have been done already, except to make it more attractive for landlords to charge higher rents in lieu of no deposit. And a bill unambiguously benefitting landlords by, for instance, blocking rent controls. So, in short, I find it hard to view this other than as a win for landlords overall.
So you're just a troll...
1) I didn't mention any specific bills as there's tons of policy that go into causing more homelessness. Just look at homelessness in Texas vs California if you wanna see the differences in policy.
2) You haven't posted the text from the law that says adults can't have whatever drugs they were getting before the law.
I mentioned ALL LAWS regardless of whether the GOP or DNC passed them. All of them are at least somewhat vague to have legal questions in how they can/will be applied and you go through that period of challenge for any law. You sure seem to get mad exclusively at the GOP for some reason. I've said how many times both parties suck? Get mad at ALL the politicians that suck vs just the GOP. You act like getting rid of the GOP will is some kind of solution when you can just look at all these US cities with no GOP power not doing good and many times doing worse. I just said in the thread about gun violence to distribute school money equally and I'm "pretending" to be left-leaning?
Did the teacher in Florida miss any class or any pay?
I can't imagine this going poorly at all. At all.
The High Cost of Rent Control
www.nmhc.org
Though, I don't get why people rent when owning is cheaper. I literally pay less for housing owning a condo vs renting a similar sized apartment would cost. Guy at work pays more for his apartment a month than I do for my condo and his place is smaller and in a worse area.
Post the text of the bill that does that
I did actually, you're just allergic to reading
Anyway, here's more information for you to ignore, complete with law citations you won't believe because you're smarter than lawyers at their own job
In 2-1 ruling, 11th Circuit Allows Florida Transgender Health Ban to…
Today a divided panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals stayed a federal district court decision blocking enforcement of the Florida laws banning…
Yep
More than your college professor
You find it difficult because you're not trying to view this in any other way. I doubt you looked at the bill.
There's a lot going on in there. Yes, it took out the literally unused exception that allowed hypothetical rent control, it also mandated that land developers in certain circumstance must dedicate a percentage of their efforts to affordable housing, as defined by rent less than an indexed to limits established by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development. And applies additional taxes on property owners who build only expensive housing. You were probably missing some information when you called that unambiguous benefit.
Post the text from the bill that says anything about adults. I've read the bill and saw nothing about it referencing adults that's why I'm literally asking you to post the part of the bill that would affect adults.Post the text of the bill that does that
I did actually, you're just allergic to reading
Anyway, here's more information for you to ignore, complete with law citations you won't believe because you're smarter than lawyers at their own job
In 2-1 ruling, 11th Circuit Allows Florida Transgender Health Ban to…
Today a divided panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals stayed a federal district court decision blocking enforcement of the Florida laws banning…floridaban.com
Yep
More than your college professor
Citation of the Florida teacher missing class or pay?
It's well cited by that website, which isn't even twitter so you have no excuse for ignoring it
Kinda hard to get payed when you're pressured to resign. That probably doesn't count for you though, she's not backed by the right wing
No it wasn't. Why is it so hard for you to copy/paste the part of the bill that references adults?
Again, no sources to back up anything outside of there is an investigation. Did she lose any class time or pay?
Why, precisely, do you think that every LGBT advocacy group, doctor, pharmacy, lawyer, politician, and trans person in Florida has decided to make completely obvious lies?
Because on the entire internet, the only person that thinks this isn't happening is you
Yes, and they wrote laws like that in the UK too, and the developers said "LOL sure!" and ran rings around the authorities to end up producing vast quantities of enormously profitable luxury flats and basically no affordable housing. So you're just going to have to forgive me if I hold my judgement until I see positive results.
Of course, the other aspect is the difference between a property developer and a landlord. Because very often, they are not the same person.
She resigned after being investigated for blatantly bullshit reasons. If you professor had done that, you wouldn't shut up about it.
But here's another example anyway, from a university that DeSantis had rules crafted to have the governor appoint trustees to, who immediately installed a unqualified political operative
You cannot possibly have written that with a straight fucking face.
Interesting note about that individual, Christopher Rufo:
Christopher Rufo Claims a Degree from “Harvard.” Umm ... Not Quite
The activist who is now a leading education policy figure on the right actually matriculated at Harvard Extension School. There’s a difference.
newrepublic.com
In short, he claims a degree from Harvard in his bio. Except it appears to be a sort of Harvard add-on, "Harvard Extension School". The article quotes a policy analyst: "Harvard Extension School courses are accepted toward degrees at most colleges and universities... Do you know who doesn’t accept HES credits? Harvard College, i.e., the undergraduate institution that everyone in the world thinks of when you say ‘Harvard.’" An interesting context for a man criticising "middling, left-wing intellectuals".
The article also notes a person from the Trump White House team who described herself as a Harvard alumna, when it turns out she paid for a $82,000, 7-week course for which no entry requirements were required other than the fee. (Many universities offer these sorts of short, often CPD-type, courses). This and Rufo above are, I fear, a relatively common sort of trick - essentially to get some sort of backdoor association with a prestigious institution and exploit that grey area to present it in way that is not quite an outright lie but also clearly misleading. It may work at face value for selling themselves, but does not speak highly of their ethical standards and transparency.
Rufo's argument is not subtle: essentially, that free enquiry only counts as a principle when directed to a good or beneficial aim. Even if prettily worded, this is patently an endorsement of censorship - a good or beneficial aim is inevitably going to be decided by the state, and thereby through their control over public sector universities gives them the ability to shut down material that they disapprove of.
I also think University executives should have higher standards of professionalism than going onto Twitter and calling people they disagree with "hysterical".
Oh, there is so much more questionable about Christopher Rufo than that. Let's just he has a propensity for playing architect.Interesting note about that individual, Christopher Rufo:
Christopher Rufo Claims a Degree from “Harvard.” Umm ... Not Quite
The activist who is now a leading education policy figure on the right actually matriculated at Harvard Extension School. There’s a difference.
In short, he claims a degree from Harvard in his bio. Except it appears to be a sort of Harvard add-on, "Harvard Extension School". The article quotes a policy analyst: "Harvard Extension School courses are accepted toward degrees at most colleges and universities... Do you know who doesn’t accept HES credits? Harvard College, i.e., the undergraduate institution that everyone in the world thinks of when you say ‘Harvard.’" An interesting context for a man criticising "middling, left-wing intellectuals".
The article also notes a person from the Trump White House team who described herself as a Harvard alumna, when it turns out she paid for a $82,000, 7-week course for which no entry requirements were required other than the fee. (Many universities offer these sorts of short, often CPD-type, courses). This and Rufo above are, I fear, a relatively common sort of trick - essentially to get some sort of backdoor association with a prestigious institution and exploit that grey area to present it in way that is not quite an outright lie but also clearly misleading. It may work at face value for selling themselves, but does not speak highly of their ethical standards and transparency.
Rufo's argument is not subtle: essentially, that free enquiry only counts as a principle when directed to a good or beneficial aim. Even if prettily worded, this is patently an endorsement of censorship - a good or beneficial aim is inevitably going to be decided by the state, and thereby through their control over public sector universities gives them the ability to shut down material that they disapprove of.
I also think University executives should have higher standards of professionalism than going onto Twitter and calling people they disagree with "hysterical".