But, in your mind, it is OK for the renter to violate his lease by subletting to third parties at 4x the rent, yes? I mean, that is exactly what you are saying. You are saying that the owner of a rent controlled property should not be able to lease the property at market value but the tenant currently occupying said property should be able to violate those same rent controls, as well as his lease, tax laws, and permitting laws.
So, you would have no problem if the law said that if you were caught breaking your legally mandated, below market value lease by subletting at market value, you would be required to retroactively pay market value rent back to the day you started subletting and continuing until you vacate the premises, yes?
No. People who sign long term leases are not allowed to the sub-lease said apartment as a "tourist or transient unit". That is actually a very common clause in lease contracts. I have little doubt that it is a relatively common law in many jurisdictions to, among other reasons, make prostitution harder.
This isn't about not allowing people to "to engage in free enterprise without greasing some palms". It is about local laws and one agreed to when one signed a lease instead of purchasing one's own property.
This may clear some things up for you:
So why can tenants rerent their units to tourists at a higher rent than what they pay their landlords? Actually, they can’t. These tenants are violating a multitude of San Francisco ordinances, starting with rent control itself, which affords their own low rent protections. If the “host” tenant is renting out their room or unit at a daily rate that exceeds their own daily rental value, that tenant is violating the San Francisco Rent Ordinance, which states that a tenant cannot charge more rent to a subtenant than what the tenant is paying their landlord.
Moreover, by offering their entire unit or room as a short-term rental (defined as a rental for less than 30 days), the tenant is also violating the San Francisco “Apartment Unit Conversion Ordinance.” That particular ordinance prohibits the rental of residential units to tourists or short-term transients without obtaining a special permit first. Violations of this ordinance has penalties, including fines of not more than $1,000 or by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of not more than six months, or by both.
Depending on the neighborhood zoning designation, it is also likely the tenant is breaking zoning laws, which require that hotels in residentially zoned districts obtain a conditional use permit. It is also probable that your tenant or his “guests” are afoul of tax laws because, in 2012, the San Francisco City Treasurer office stated that short-term rentals were subject to the city’s transient occupancy tax (also known as the “hotel tax”). Lastly, assuming the tenant has signed an SFAA lease, they are in breach of the “no subletting” clause of their lease agreement. The most recent version of the SFAA lease is even more explicit, and specifically states in the section entitled “Use” that “No hotel use, such as daily rentals, shall be made.”
That those are the best selling NEW android devices doesn't matter. They are a small part of a larger pie. There are many more LESS EXPENSIVE devices and people who can't afford a new Android device keep using their old Android device and buy newer devices in the secondary market which doesn't show up on sales reports.
The mistake you are making is only accounting for new device sales. Undoubtedly, some of the those new device sales have been financed by the selling of the old device to a third party, be it a private party or a broker.
They probably have some experience studying, in order for them to get appointed on a specific committee in the first place.
Committee appointments are strictly political. The only qualification is to be well connected. Knowledge of the subject on which the committee meets is not required.
I notice that the OC says nothing about denier vs supporter. He talks about "experts" and implies that if one wants to see the world on an expense account, one should become a "climate change expert", regardless of side.
Yet, the charts of the data on pages 38 and 39 in the second linked reports do not support the projections presented. The charts seem to indicate that temperature is not increasing as fast as the projections claim.
There is no requirement that one own insurance on one's phone. The comprehensive insurance on one's vehicle and the insurance on one's phone are comparable.
Now you are being a foolish, naive American. Those countries don't need a kill switch. They control the cell networks and they disappear people all the time, especially North Korea. Why kill the phone when you can kill the person?
Insurance covers and pays out for more than just stolen phones. It is like saying "people spend around $500 million to replace cars from damaged in car fires and pay $50 billion in car insurance".
Insurance covers more than just stolen phones. It covers non-warranty repairs and replacements, such as from water damage, abuse, etc. When I worked for Nokia, we repeatedly got calls about being pushed into the pool, dropped in the toilet, washed in pants, baby drooled on it, we even had one phone damaged by water because the owner charged it in the bathroom while taking a hot shower causing condensation. They all wanted warranty repair for things not covered by the waranty. Stolen phones are only a small part of the payout numbers for phone insurance.
No, you don't understand at all. First off, they are going to lose money because they can't sell the peanut butter for which they have already paid. They do get to write off the loss, but that write off isn't a reason not to donate the jars because they could write off the full value of the donation. If one includes the good will generated by the donation, the value of the donation would more than compensate for the lost revenue. But,they can't risk selling the peanut butter because if someone get's sick, they will be sued AND, they have no one they can in turn sue because the manufacturer has gone bankrupt. And, if they donate the peanut butter, they face the same risk, plus possible legal action, plus possible bad will, plus possible legal action from minority shareholders.
You seem to think that high speed internet access is universally available across the united states. I have news for you, it isn't. There are huge swaths of the country that don't have access to high speed internet at any price. In many places. That doesn't include the large number of people who can afford a DVD player but can't afford an internet connection, those who don't have a permanent residence, people like truck drivers who don't have access to internet most of the time, etc.
Bennett Haselton, you need to get out of your suburban ivory tower and experience life as so many do, without all the wonderful advantages you currently enjoy.
No, they are natural herbal remedies that led to the extraction and refinement of the active ingredients. They are different from "holistic" which you seem to know nothing about your own damn self.
Slashdot Mirror
But, in your mind, it is OK for the renter to violate his lease by subletting to third parties at 4x the rent, yes? I mean, that is exactly what you are saying. You are saying that the owner of a rent controlled property should not be able to lease the property at market value but the tenant currently occupying said property should be able to violate those same rent controls, as well as his lease, tax laws, and permitting laws.
So, you would have no problem if the law said that if you were caught breaking your legally mandated, below market value lease by subletting at market value, you would be required to retroactively pay market value rent back to the day you started subletting and continuing until you vacate the premises, yes?
Not having the proper permits, violating the rent control laws and not paying taxes are crimes.
Those taxes help pay for police, inspections, etc.
This isn't about not allowing people to "to engage in free enterprise without greasing some palms". It is about local laws and one agreed to when one signed a lease instead of purchasing one's own property.
This may clear some things up for you:
So why can tenants rerent their units to tourists at a higher rent than what they pay their landlords? Actually, they can’t. These tenants are violating a multitude of San Francisco ordinances, starting with rent control itself, which affords their own low rent protections. If the “host” tenant is renting out their room or unit at a daily rate that exceeds their own daily rental value, that tenant is violating the San Francisco Rent Ordinance, which states that a tenant cannot charge more rent to a subtenant than what the tenant is paying their landlord.
Moreover, by offering their entire unit or room as a short-term rental (defined as a rental for less than 30 days), the tenant is also violating the San Francisco “Apartment Unit Conversion Ordinance.” That particular ordinance prohibits the rental of residential units to tourists or short-term transients without obtaining a special permit first. Violations of this ordinance has penalties, including fines of not more than $1,000 or by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of not more than six months, or by both.
Depending on the neighborhood zoning designation, it is also likely the tenant is breaking zoning laws, which require that hotels in residentially zoned districts obtain a conditional use permit. It is also probable that your tenant or his “guests” are afoul of tax laws because, in 2012, the San Francisco City Treasurer office stated that short-term rentals were subject to the city’s transient occupancy tax (also known as the “hotel tax”). Lastly, assuming the tenant has signed an SFAA lease, they are in breach of the “no subletting” clause of their lease agreement. The most recent version of the SFAA lease is even more explicit, and specifically states in the section entitled “Use” that “No hotel use, such as daily rentals, shall be made.”
Does that clear things up?
That those are the best selling NEW android devices doesn't matter. They are a small part of a larger pie. There are many more LESS EXPENSIVE devices and people who can't afford a new Android device keep using their old Android device and buy newer devices in the secondary market which doesn't show up on sales reports.
The mistake you are making is only accounting for new device sales. Undoubtedly, some of the those new device sales have been financed by the selling of the old device to a third party, be it a private party or a broker.
It could be that people are just getting better educated.
This thing is full of ifs and maybes. This is neither news nor science. It is speculation.
Oh, yes, and the Titanic was unsinkable.
Because I don't unnecessarily cling to the past. I move on and adapt to the the world.
Windows XP is not a photocopier. It isn't a car. It isn't a physical product at all. There are plenty of alternatives to Windows XP out there.
If one wishes to argue the comparison to a physical product, shall we require Ford to continue to make and support the Model T?
They probably have some experience studying, in order for them to get appointed on a specific committee in the first place.
Committee appointments are strictly political. The only qualification is to be well connected. Knowledge of the subject on which the committee meets is not required.
And, you have no evidence of that at all. You are simply assuming that because it is an ad hom attack against the side with which you don't agree.
I notice that the OC says nothing about denier vs supporter. He talks about "experts" and implies that if one wants to see the world on an expense account, one should become a "climate change expert", regardless of side.
Yet, the charts of the data on pages 38 and 39 in the second linked reports do not support the projections presented. The charts seem to indicate that temperature is not increasing as fast as the projections claim.
There is no requirement that one own insurance on one's phone. The comprehensive insurance on one's vehicle and the insurance on one's phone are comparable.
No, I have a fire resistant safe at my house for those things.
Now you are being a foolish, naive American. Those countries don't need a kill switch. They control the cell networks and they disappear people all the time, especially North Korea. Why kill the phone when you can kill the person?
I think you are talking about the ones in Escape from New York.
Insurance covers and pays out for more than just stolen phones. It is like saying "people spend around $500 million to replace cars from damaged in car fires and pay $50 billion in car insurance".
Insurance covers more than just stolen phones. It covers non-warranty repairs and replacements, such as from water damage, abuse, etc. When I worked for Nokia, we repeatedly got calls about being pushed into the pool, dropped in the toilet, washed in pants, baby drooled on it, we even had one phone damaged by water because the owner charged it in the bathroom while taking a hot shower causing condensation. They all wanted warranty repair for things not covered by the waranty. Stolen phones are only a small part of the payout numbers for phone insurance.
So, this is really a scheme to sell safety deposit boxes.
Pay to get a dev introduced bug fixed? Where have I heard that before?
Oh, yes, I heard it here on Slashdot. FLOSS supporters were bitterly ripping closed source software for "forcing people to pay for bug fixes".
No, you don't understand at all. First off, they are going to lose money because they can't sell the peanut butter for which they have already paid. They do get to write off the loss, but that write off isn't a reason not to donate the jars because they could write off the full value of the donation. If one includes the good will generated by the donation, the value of the donation would more than compensate for the lost revenue. But,they can't risk selling the peanut butter because if someone get's sick, they will be sued AND, they have no one they can in turn sue because the manufacturer has gone bankrupt. And, if they donate the peanut butter, they face the same risk, plus possible legal action, plus possible bad will, plus possible legal action from minority shareholders.
You seem to think that high speed internet access is universally available across the united states. I have news for you, it isn't. There are huge swaths of the country that don't have access to high speed internet at any price. In many places. That doesn't include the large number of people who can afford a DVD player but can't afford an internet connection, those who don't have a permanent residence, people like truck drivers who don't have access to internet most of the time, etc.
Bennett Haselton, you need to get out of your suburban ivory tower and experience life as so many do, without all the wonderful advantages you currently enjoy.
No, they are natural herbal remedies that led to the extraction and refinement of the active ingredients. They are different from "holistic" which you seem to know nothing about your own damn self.