Well, apparently a big chunk of "working people" don't deserve that much. Or did you think you were talking to a big rich investor in this thread?

Well I guess since I was hit by the mass layoffs Im technically not working right now, so I suppose your logic checks out. Nvm.

>I think you're prioritizing strictly what's important to you

> No amount of gaslighting is going to convince me that they don't know what's in their interests.

In the end you're a bleeding heart who only considers a subset of people you personally care about, and fuck everyone else.

> material comfort

And many physical and mental health issues people like you don't care for.

Ultimately, you started the argument with (paraphrasing, dramatization) "Lol, it makes landlords squirm so obviously its good for ALL TENANTS!". I wonder who's the one who has things that are "worth thinking about".

>This bill would not increase the burden on tenants vis-à-vis their neighbors.

Yes it would, because we live in the real world, and I explained the reason in the first post. If a tenant is a nuisance, and there's a good cause requirement and they fight it, the landlord (and neighbors) have to prove it in a court of law, whereas right now you can just let the lease expire. That makes the burden exponentially higher.

For example right now if someone smoke in a non-smoking building, its INCREDIBLY difficult to evict them for it unless they straight up admit to it. Even if they do admit to it, they can just go in front of the judge, say "Yeah we stopped yesterday and will never smoke again" (even if its bullshit), and the judge will throw away the case until the landlord has proofs, and it's not like they're allowed to stick cameras in the unit. Basically what goes from "until the lease is done" becomes "until full blown eviction proceedings of the most difficult kind can go through".

That ABSOLUTELY increase the burden of tenants vs their neighbors. Having been in such a situation (as a tenant, not a landlord. Also once as part of a condo association vs someone's tenant) and having had to move mid lease several times in just a few years because of this bullshit, I've got hit first hand. Its not fun.

We live in a world where there's a very complex legal system. Laws exist inside that system, so its important to consider how they impact that system in practice, not just on paper.

> It could not be clearer

It couldn't be any clearer that all the reasons to get someone out of a unit that doesn't have to do with economics (and the challenges of doing so) are basically ignored.

> I don't know what you mean by "for something to be bad from multiple angles,"

I'm saying it absolutely would hurt landlords (increasing their cost), which I'm totally fine with. But it would also hurt the quality of life of a portion of good tenants. Because BOTH landlords -and- tenants hate dealing with problematic people. And a bill like this absolutely make it harder to deal with them.

Higher QoL standards and enforcement of QoL rules = less NIMBYism = more supply.

More supply (while retaining QoL) is good for tenants and bad for landlords. This bill is just a shortsighted stopgap patch.

Because its possible for something to be bad from multiple angles. Shocking, I know.

Did you know tenants aren't a single homogenous group, too?

>If you're a tenant, you stand only to gain from this bill.

Nope. Not even close. Mentioned in the other thread, but the issue is that a bill like this makes it that evictions or eviction like procedures become the only way to get rid of a nuisance tenant (the "good cause"). Evicting someone for nuisance is extremely difficult. Right now a landlord can just wait out the lease and then kick them out. With a good cause requirement, they now have to go through hoops and prove it. Things like nuisance dogs, people smoking in non-smoking buildings, tenants harassing other tenants, etc. All those go from "until the lease expires" to "until the landlord decides to go through the court", essentially.

In an environment where quality of life is eroding everywhere and every day, adding another one isn't on my wish list. You already have the issue that landlords can't evict for non-payment of penalty fees (eg: penalties for smoking), so their only teeth is eviction and non-renewal of leases. Moving that to just eviction isn't a win. Nope nope nope.

You're going to skyrocket the amount of NIMBY sentiment, which in turns make it harder to build for density and increase price of single family housing, which then increase the housing problem.

I've live in countries where QoL issues were taken seriously and easier to address. NIMBY sentiment is waaaaaaay down when people don't have to be afraid of their neighbors.

That's pretty common. Basically the idea is "you can have a dog but you don't impose your dog on anyone else". My building has that too.

So advice: just follow the rule. Its not a big deal.

Amazon Go doesn't have much worth stealing. If it was used in a legit pharmacy people would just jump the gates.

I love Amazon Go. Go in, pick stuff, get out. Using the palm scanner I don't even need to take out my phone or wallet. Great if I just want a quick snack or drink.

My only issue with them is the way they cycle their inventory. If I want popcorn chicken, its a gamble if they're gonna have it or not and seems semi-random. The breakfast options completely suck too.

But I really like the store's concept.

How do you track who has registered them and who didn't in a building of hundreds of people with constant guests coming in and out?

Its like buildings that require pets to be registered. They kindda check when you move in (maybe), but after that its essentially free for all, since its impossible for the building to keep track.

>Still, a blanket ban of all ebike batteries is very silly.

Regardless of the reasoning behind the ban, enforcing nuance in apartment rules is basically impossible because of the burden of proof required. It kindda has to be all or nothing, else its nothing by default.

Even if not so secretly. Our building has them banned (been in the leases from day 1 when they started leasing), and there's a bunch of people with them anyway. (They're even allowed if you park them in the basement, but people insist on having them in their units).

But if they refuse to comply, what can you do? Evict them? Sure, but that takes forever right now, and they know this.

I "love" all the dogs in grocery stores (which are explicitly forbidden by state law. INCLUDING emotional support animals, as only trained service animals are exempts). Mommy can't stand being without her puppy for an hour, the poor thing.

>Children are JUST as disgusting and I could argue that they should be banned from certain buildings too

That's a strawman if I've ever seen one. I'm no fan of kids myself, but society has considered them a special case for just about every rules since times immemorial, in virtually every country. I'd love to have more childfree spaces, but comparing kids to pets is just silly.

I really feel for the 20 or so people in the country who have legitimate ESAs. I work in the mental health and accessibility field and have yet to see a single legitimate one, lol (yeah yeah, I know they do exist and are pretty common, but damn are the fake ones so much more prevalent. And that's just the ones from people who brag about how they are gaming the system openly).

They definitely can ask/require a letter from a health provider, and can still kick them out if they're trouble. The former is kind of pointless though because you can't verify its legitimacy. Advocates insist there's accountability because you can look for signs in a letter to see if its fake, but truth is the information is so readily available, if your fake ESA letter isn't perfect, you need to learn how to google.

That's....pretty normal? See it that way: some people are spending the same "7000 a month" and don't want to deal with your furry baby.

Unfortunately the prevalence of fake ESAs means its kind of a waste of time to try and enforce it.

It's a pretty popular flavor.

It wouldn't be cost effective for anyone if the town paid for it, because the person who can cause trouble isn't the one footing the bill. That small town absolutely could find someone to underwrite it, it would just be cost prohibitive. If the cops themselves had to pay for it on their own, it would STILL be cost prohibitive (at first), but they wouldn't have a choice.

I've had to get some insurance for pretty non-standard stuff in the past. You can't just sign up online, and need to talk with an actual human and negotiate, but it can be done. And if the market gets big enough, then it would become "standard" insurance over time.

I doubt there's a mass market for these right now since they don't need them.

But given a big enough dollar amount, you can get an insurance company to write you a policy for almost anything. If I want insurance to handle the case where I would get pregnant (which is biologically impossible for me, born with only male parts and all), someone somewhere will underwrite it for the right price.

>and require officers to purchase malpractice insurance

This IMO is the biggest one. And if they then just go "Ok but we just wont' arrest anyone if its too risky" then fire them, like you would anyone who refuses to do their job.

I'm curious how many positions are union-eligible. HC is fairly large, and the amount of employees in that union are a very small percentage, but I'm not sure how many people they potentially cover.

AFAIK the building they're striking in front of is mostly empty. It's near World Trade and most folks on that street will be tourist taking pictures of the Oculus, and the only people hearing them are probably folks living in the one residential building there.

So pissed off residents sick of listening to the generic chants, and tourists who couldn't give a shit, alongside the 6 employees who actually work from the building.

Whats the point exactly?

I'm also not 100% familiar with the context, but afaik they had a strike last summer and did have a contract. They're just no longer happy with it after 6 months. From an employer's point of view, there's no incentives to give in to the strike since they could give them what they want and then they come back in 6 months with the exact same arguments.

I think unions are a good thing (for most cases. There are exceptions), and fully support strikes, especially for professions that don't have much leverage otherwise, but this one was poorly thought up.

>barriers to new construction are often based on local appeals to "character" and environmental issues

I don't know about NYS, but in most places I lived, appeals took that form because its almost part of an unwritten protocol, and are rarely the real reasons.

While there's obviously a lot of NYMBYism for selfish and wrong reasons, developers also tend to be greedy and don't give a fuck about people they impact, and there's almost always something REALLY wrong/illegal/fucked up with every new project proposal. In an attempt to get that shit sorted out, you also open the floor to idiots who will bitch about anything and everything.

I lived somewhere where they builder across the street (in another state) wanted to make a mix used building where the commercial portion would be used by chemical labs. When reading the specs, we realized the fumes from that lab were going to be highly toxic, in large volume, shit on every environmental laws ever written, and we were downwind from it. The only venue we had to appeal was in community reviews. The same meetings where the arguments were being drowned out in NYMBYs bitching about "character" and YIMBYs saying anyone against it was a selfish NYMBY. That was rough.

Just one example, but almost every project review i've been directly or indirectly involved in (which was quite a few) had something like that going on.

I'm not defending the decision by any mean, but that would be apple and orange, assuming they're also feeding those people, maintaining the place, dealing with edge cases where folks will be wrecking it up, security, etc. If they could just rent a bunch of market place apartments and dump them in there they'd do that.