Brawndo has electrolytes!

With the addition of all those orange pine trees! Haha. Is this your photo? Is that why you're so defensive about it?

Way more than 5 conifers as well. Are you just trying to troll at this point or do you seriously think this photo isn't heavily edited?

Wouldn't it just be easier to say you don't know how economies work?

If Vermont never saw another tourist... like.....ever, my money, income, job, career, would change exactly 0%. My job has nothing, absolutely nothing tied to tourism. Even in third order effects, nothing. I'm basically as far removed from tourism as possible.

A good effort on your part though!

Did he?

Get your reasoning out of here! Conifers totally change color like that in the Fall.....

Give yer balls a tug

>I said what I said

Yes, yes you did. The sentence also didn't sense because it was barely English.

I suppose explaining a thought might use too much brainpower for you, so cheerio!

No and no.

You want to edit that comment so it actually makes sense?

Idiots, we complain about idiots. Tourists are fine.

I also make zero dollars a year from tourists.

That's not photography, that's digital manipulation. Photography is a camera and the manipulation of light.

Throwing filters and editing the absolute hell out of a photo isn't photography. Some editing to correct imperfections to make the photo resemble real life is normal, but this is dogshit. It's like taking a Marvel movie and calling it a documentary.

And yet they keep coming? So strange.

How much acid are you taking to think the trees look like that and where can I get some?

Oh the humanity!!!!

It isn't an incentive though, there isn't something for the landlord to gain. It's a restriction. Don't get me wrong, I agree with app fees being bullshit, but if the referrals are good, but there is shit credit or bad background check, in a market like Burlington, the landlord will move onto the next applicant who for the most part is identical.

The result is just lost time. Not a big deal, but those hours or even a day to clear someone adds up.

That's why I'm saying find a new system like a mortgage pre-approval. It might not be the best idea, but just me shooting from the hip.

A renter gets a background/credit check and it generates a code tied to their license or ID number. That is good for however many days makes sense. I don't know how long someone usually looks for an apartment. Say 1-3 months. The landlord then logs takes that code and verifies it via the same system.

It's a one time charge to the renter for a duration of apartment hunting. Everyone has instant feedback without multiple reports, checks, or charges.

In theory, it should speed up the process because the process is occurring, but only occuring once for the duration of an apartment hunt.

The cost isn't eaten. It's passed onto the renter at some point. Not $1K per unit, that hyperbole, but the money is passed on.

For your other comment, you can do all the leg work of references and calls beforehand or you can slap the easy dequal button and have people submit checks and then disqualify based on that data before calling references.

Okay, so reread my first paragraph. Landlord has upfront cost of background/credit check. That is the included in future rent costs.

It doesn't save renters any money, it moves the issue to another issue rather than solving the problem. Congrat, won the meaningless victory of changing a law that doesn't accomplish anything. It's a win! But the win doesn't solve the problem.

Great intent, but not allowing the background check fee will just increase rent of the actual units. Landlord loses $1K in fees to rent to new tenant, rent just went up $85 per month.

We need to fix the system as a whole and not just an issue in the system.

Just like you can bring an outside loan to a car dealership or a mortgage pre-approval letter for buying a house, bring an outside credit/background check to renting. Third party gives credit/background check, it's on file and good for however long makes sense. 30, 60, 90 days? I don't know, but credit and background shouldn't tank in that time. All landlords receive a way to verify the details, renters only get charged once, more fees avoided.

Fines, sure. Judicial punishment, why not, but going to the extreme of taking property due to application fees, that's a bit much. If they reach such a high level of fines that they have to sell the property, then they probably should have stopped doing charging fees like an idiot.

Should stop the practice of application fees, because well, it's the law, but that punishment of taking properties, what would a realistic threshold be?

So you want the state to seize private property?

20th generation? Sure sure. What was the original bridge you were trolling under?

I don't support your decision, but I support your choice to make that decision.

I see it similar to, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Yes, let us tell you about this insignificant town.

Your mom was 'round here waaaaay before this thread.

Of course.