I somewhat disagree, because landlords have a say by their sheer number and capital. If credit agencies or reporting services want to gouge landlords, that shouldn't be the tenant's problem and landlords should come together to negotiate lower prices. I much prefer the built-in tenant protection here of a $10 per month cap.
Dipbeneaththelasers
joined 6 months ago
CA landlords can charge their monthly cost or $10, whichever is less.
Listen for the tiny screams.
I buy my dog a particular brand of dog treat because the damn things smell SO GOOD. Literally like a bakery. I've never eaten one, but I take a big whiff of the bag every time it's open.
Fun fact: A team in hazmat suits recently cleaned the bus stop I use every day. So yay! And also not yay.
We're talking about American politics, every avenue of which is spun by media looking for eyeballs, capitalists looking for dollars, leaders looking for allies, and egoists looking for power. Sure there are individuals that just want to share their opinion, but there is also no shortage of people who are trying to trick some portion of the electorate.
This is my kind of thread pulling. I like your style.
A million percent agree. If you haven't played it yet, look nothing up and play it as blindly as possible. I'm so glad I did and wish I could do it again.
From the article
It's for worse for sure. What if people didn't have to worry in their 30s, 40s, and 50s about sustaining their livelihood in late stage capitalism and could instead focus on what makes them happy? I bet "retirement jobs" would look a lot different.
view more: next ›
Good point and well said. The law in CA only applies to buildings with at least 15 units, it's opt-in so landlords will only have to pay for tenants who opt for it, and there are provisions for canceling the service for tenants who don't pay (then restrictions on their ability to opt-in again). That should help mitigate the impact to mom and pop shops.