huskers2468

huskers2468 t1_j9uoff2 wrote

>But I think tenants should have immediate and very real legal recourses for landlords who don't maintain properties to 100% habitable conditions,

Absolutely agree.

>maintaining the entire property at code.

Agreed, but it's far more nuanced than what you are stating. Safety is the top priority, and that's what code is for. The nuance comes with the urgency to repair, the funds to repair, timeline, active tenants disruption, oversight.

I agree, that there are awful landlords that abuse the system and their tenants. I agree that the system needs to be corrected with more quality checks and oversight.

I just also understand that there is way more depth to many of the maintenance issues that you raised and that tenants raise as well. I tend to agree with the tenants, but I also understand that correcting these issues takes time, displaces tenants, and have many more layers.

This is a subject that I'm involved with, but I understand that I'm in no way an expert.

4

huskers2468 t1_j9tcfxh wrote

I mean, I get what you are saying, but at the same time the tenant and landlord dynamic is always going to have tension and opposing views.

I'm not sure what eviction measure OP is talking about, but there could be good reason to oppose or to agree. "Landlord doesn't support tenants" doesn't really tell me anything, because they could be a great landlord and the bill could be taking away the ability to remove dangerous or damaging tenants.

I'm biased, due to being a landlord, but I tend to favor tenants rights. I dislike what landlording has become in many regards. However, there are many scenarios where eviction is the right course of action for the landlord, property, and other tenants. That's of course to say, landlords can abuse the eviction process as well.

−4

huskers2468 t1_j90zux3 wrote

I think you are putting two inequitable objectives together.

The primary goal of interplanetary colonization isn't to save the world. There might be some selling points to "save the species," but we aren't really at that point. I view it more as a challenge to see if we can, not that it's a necessity.

It's "cool" to be able say the human race was able to colonize multiple planets, and to be apart of the team that accomplished the feat.

Why would they want to colonize the ocean floor, when there is still plenty of land to develop?

1

huskers2468 t1_j7sh7mc wrote

>Can VTers ever just accept that there is something, anything, wrong with the state without trying to distract from the issue?

>Regardless of where Vermont stands relative to other states, it's clear to me that something should be done to help people without permanent housing

They absolutely, and literally, addressed your complaint. You just don't like the order of their comment. That sounds like a you problem.

Not everything has to be a full throated yell, it's ok to be measured in responses, and critical of studies that deserve it. Even if those studies prove the point you are trying to make.

1

huskers2468 t1_j7rsra7 wrote

They literally said the opposite in the comment. Literally.

>Regardless of where Vermont stands relative to other states, it's clear to me that something should be done to help people without permanent housing.

Are you just wanting to be upset at someone pointing out that there is a flaw in the data? It is ok to hold both the idea that Vermont needs to correct the issue, and that the data being used could be misrepresenting the actual numbers.

Data integrity matters, it dictates where funds are directed.

3

huskers2468 t1_j6ctk86 wrote

Ahh I was just pointing out that clear wasn't exactly the goal, it overshoots it a bit. However, like you said, electrolytes can be added back in.

I know you had it right, but the common adage of "clear is the best" is not correct. People have been overdrinking water for a decade. "Force yourself to drink a gallon of water a day" is not a good thing.

Sorry, I should have made it clear I agreed with you. Just not with the common practice that gets floated around.

10

huskers2468 t1_j3xjlf1 wrote

I don't think I'll ever get used to someone stopping on the far lane to let me take a left out of a store. Not a light or a stop sign, in the middle of the road.

They always smile and wave, so I do the same. I just don't want to see that nice person get rear-ended.

3

huskers2468 OP t1_j1vg7mh wrote

Reply to comment by Amity83 in Realtor Course by huskers2468

Ahh that makes sense. Now I see why it's best to work for a company first, and then utilize their expertise for training and the exam.

>Realtor is a trademarked term and refers only to real estate salespeople who are members of the National Association of Realtors.

That's actually very helpful. I thought they were interchangable, but now I see that it's just a subsection.

Thank you for taking the time to write all of this up. I hope you have a great rest of your holidays.

2

huskers2468 OP t1_j1uwrd1 wrote

Reply to comment by Amity83 in Realtor Course by huskers2468

Awesome, thank you for the information.

Just to clarify, I wouldn't be able to apply for "real estate agent" openings, correct? Or would that be the position and I just wouldn't be qualified to sell my own while going through training and taking the test?

3