That seems like an argument, but you didn't back it up with anything. Do you have some inside knowledge about what legal counsel is telling property managers? If so can you establish that this the common cause across the industry?

If their lease is up couldn't they raise their rent? Leases I have signed generally state a rate for a given period. Often both parties will choose to just continue past that, but in a high inflation environment you can't really expect that.

Landlords aren't the reason prices are high. Prices are high in part because more people want to be where there is less housing than will house that many people so they bid it up, and in part because of inflation. Both factors are in no small part influenced by the FED.

Housing is not a high margin industry (for most common housing). The cost of everything has been going up a lot. Labor, hardware, power, loans..... You don't want companies waiting until they need the money to try and get the money. That's what happened to SVB, and what will probably happen to a lot of companies in the next couple years. Especially ones with high debt. Can you think of an industry that involves holding a lot of debt?

So never for about half the population.

That's not really a scientific answer. It's a ball park guess made based on some evidence, that scientists generally sort of agree on, but there isn't really any way to know for sure, as nobody really knows how non living mater becomes living in the first place.

What people should do is mind their own business. There is no reason this should be something the government has anything to do with.

I never understood the "when life begins" arguments.

Life is continuous you can't make a baby with dead sperm.

It also seems completely irrelevant to what if anything the government should have to say about it.

It doesn't appear to me that people are considering cause at all in this thread.

Nobody just kicks out a good tenant for no reason. There are undoubtedly a whole variety of reasons why someone would not renew a lease. We can argue about how justifiable each one might be but it's important for everyone involved to know when and how the agreement can end.

Everyone knows what the terms of the lease are at the beginning. You don't just have 30 days, you have the whole term of your lease. If it's important to you to remain longer than your lease you can request to renew your lease. If you wait until there's only 30 days left to address that issue that's on you as much as anyone else.

Worked out great for the Bolsheviks.

"landlords generally get the less traumatic end of the 'unexpected moveout' "

Seems like something someone who hasn't been a landlord would say.

I had one lady who after not paying her rent for quite a long time decided rather than leave that she would just burn the building down with everyone else inside. It didn't go to plan, thankfully nobody was harmed. Substantial damage to the unit and some very tenants in the rest of the building who I'm sure would have preferred I was able to get her out sooner.

Having to move unexpectedly is an inconvenience that you were aware was possible when you sign the lease and move in. The property owner being able to immediately get rid of people is absolutely necessary for the safety and well being of everyone involved. The law should take that into account.

If you don't have the right to decide under what conditions someone is allowed to stay on your property then you don't really own it now do you?

No landlord wants to get rid of good tenants.

I wouldn't drink the tap water even without the PFAS stuff. Under the sink RO is pretty cheap and easy to install. You get cheap good tasting pure water.

What you absorb through the shower / bath is a bigger problem. Whole house RO is crazy expensive and basically zero houses or apartments have any kind of easy way to run just shower water through a system. You are stuck filtering all the water you flush down the toilet or otherwise wasted water.

Edit: It's at least avoidable in drinking water. It's basically impossible to filter other goods for it. Not just food. Things like fabrics, containers, cleaning products, shampoo, floss, those face masks everyone was wearing for a couple of years, tampons. You could be getting as much exposure from other sources as from your water anyway.

I don't have a solution. Just pointing some things out. I don't know if a ban would have much real impact, especially if it wasn't a global 100% enforced ban. It seems likely we may be able to mitigate the harm through biotech advances long before we can get the stuff out of our supply chain, if it's even possible to get it out of our supply chain.

I was not talking about politicians. If I was talking about people who were public figures I would give examples. I don't think it's justifiable to point to regular people from one camp or another as examples for the sake of an internet argument.

It also seems really silly. If you haven't seen both left and right wing crazy already it must be your first day on the internet.

True the housing market has gotten ridiculous due to people fleeing larger cities and moving into the state.

I imagine that will resolve itself at some point here. Especially with high interest rates and doesn't seem very sustainable.

Yep. Some of them are so crazy they have basically went all the way around and touched tips with the right wing nutjobs.

I was speaking of the supporters more than politicians. Most of the politicians aren't crazy, they are just opportunistic parasites that use whatever brand of crazy is convenient in order to gain power. A few of them might be drinking koolaid, but mostly they don't really care about the things they are making a big deal of.

I'm sure it depends a lot on what kind of a job you are looking for. If it's just any entry level job I wouldn't imagine you should have any issue finding one.

Both sides are pretty full of over the top doomsayers over every stupid little thing that mostly doesn't matter.

Sure. What does mater however is that there is a system in place that allows for people in power to force others to waste money on things. It's a small example of a very large and very serious issue.

I think it might be best to use these smaller less important examples to illuminate the problem, because with larger more complex budget items people get sucked into all kinds of tangents and myriad ideological debates about what benefits or determent any given part of the spending leads to.

A wasted $1.5 million is a wasted $1.5 million. I don't consider the state wasting that kind of money to be trivial. It's money they have to take from people who could do something actually useful with it.

Oh no, the Canadians might be coming for us!!!

Stupid.

There are less appealing buildings around.

She has to do with the fact that it isn't legal.

That a Democrat vetoed legalization. What about that argument doesn't make sense to you? Democrats pretend to be pro legalization, but few of them actually vote that way.

Actual votes for the person who vetoed it say something else.

Not saying Republicans are in general any better, they both suck on this.

He seems to be a run of the mill politician. He's going to pander to whoever he needs to get to votes and do what those who get him elected ask him to.

Probably not any worse than any other presidential candidate with a chance in hell, and if he goes to Washington maybe we can get a better Governor.

I'm not sure how a snarky comment does that. Or do you think there not being a federal government would somehow do that. As if states don't have laws covering the same thing? How often does that sort of thing even go to a federal court?