Future post: If they had just complied, it wouldn’t have come to this…

It’s hilarious that people now say that as a complaint about legal pot, when the tax revenue was part of the selling point for legalization in the first place.

They’re not discriminating against you on the basis of dog ownership. You can use the front door on your own or with another person. They’re discriminating based on whether you have a dog with you at that moment in time.

Heads up, a lot of places do this—or are you one of those schmucks that brings your dog into stores?

There’s nothing you can do. They’re allowed to set new rules for the common areas. They’re not significantly burdening your ability to have a dog, so appealing to your lease isn’t going to help. If they didn’t allow you to use any entrance, then you could make an argument that they altered the lease terms since you can’t have a dog in your apartment without bringing it through the common areas. The “burden” of using the service entrance isn’t enough.

Great, flood the market. Lower housing prices.

Whatever the reason, “public restroom” is a much better descriptor than “comfort station.”

It’s the full phrase. CTRL+F “station” in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comfort_women

edit: did downvoting change history? nope. “comfort women” were kept at “comfort stations.” it’s not just the word “comfort” that they have in common.

Neat story, gramps.

Thank you!

Looking good, buddy.

> No one ever needs to buy into the model and, as the business grows, the percentage of available ownership expands.

> they're very well within their legal rights to opt with the other applicant.

Of course they are. I’m not sure why you’re repeating yourself when I already agreed with you. Not discriminating against vouchers does not mean favoring vouchers. I never claimed that and I already told you that.

What I have said is that the voucher status isn’t supposed to be part of the decision at all. If a landlord consistently ends up accepting non-vouchered applicants over vouchered ones, though, it would be hard to come up with an explanation that doesn’t rely on the voucher factoring in to the decision.

> The voucher isn’t supposed to be factored into the decision at all.

Discriminating on education and professional qualifications is one of the forms that is legal and societally accepted.

This is closer to employers discriminating based on criminal history in jurisdictions that have enacted “ban the box” laws. They’re not supposed to make decisions based on that particular characteristic.

No one said they do, but if the decision always ends up being for the non-vouchered applicant, well, one has to wonder how that happens without discrimination. The voucher isn’t supposed to be factored into the decision at all.

Asking honestly, why do people like Byford? I don’t really know much about his accomplishments. Seemed like he had good ideas, but he wasn’t around long enough to do much with them.

I didn’t draw the line. That’s legally defined as housing discrimination.

Yes, that’s literally the point of credit scores.

Prejudice takes a lot of forms. Most of them are both legal and societally accepted. Whether and how much it should be is debatable, but what’s not debatable is that “voucher tenants are going to destroy the place and refuse to leave” is a prejudicial statement (and if acted upon is illegal housing discrimination).

In short, more prejudice.

In short, prejudice.

All the properties the DOE and City own and we need to lease property for schools? Seems wasteful.

Go ahead.

> The ditch are expert canal builders

They’d have to be, with a name like “the ditch.”

I don’t think you know what canals are.

Are you sure it’s not coming from inside the apartment? Are they screaming, “Let me out”?

Sure. I was responding to someone who had to question whether the three on their block are legal, so I was going for a simpler test for a simpler person.