Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Ricechex
ParticipantYep, follow the money. No clue how this will pan out, but it is guaranteed to be worse either by quality of service, and/or by increased taxation. It may be worth it sometime soon to risk the $2000 fine, and pay for medical costs out of pocket. Dental “insurance” is really a “dental plan”—pay now or pay as you go….costs the same essentially.
Lots of fuzzy warm feelings to provide medical care for all. It’s nice to be altruistic, but altruism isn’t running the show here. The corporation is and there is no way that this would have gotten passed if SOMEONE wasn’t getting paid.
There is a worm in dat dere apple, we just can’t see it–YET. Partypup and Arraya called it out. Simply put, it is a bait and switch.
ParticipantYep, follow the money. No clue how this will pan out, but it is guaranteed to be worse either by quality of service, and/or by increased taxation. It may be worth it sometime soon to risk the $2000 fine, and pay for medical costs out of pocket. Dental “insurance” is really a “dental plan”—pay now or pay as you go….costs the same essentially.
Lots of fuzzy warm feelings to provide medical care for all. It’s nice to be altruistic, but altruism isn’t running the show here. The corporation is and there is no way that this would have gotten passed if SOMEONE wasn’t getting paid.
There is a worm in dat dere apple, we just can’t see it–YET. Partypup and Arraya called it out. Simply put, it is a bait and switch.
ParticipantYep, follow the money. No clue how this will pan out, but it is guaranteed to be worse either by quality of service, and/or by increased taxation. It may be worth it sometime soon to risk the $2000 fine, and pay for medical costs out of pocket. Dental “insurance” is really a “dental plan”—pay now or pay as you go….costs the same essentially.
Lots of fuzzy warm feelings to provide medical care for all. It’s nice to be altruistic, but altruism isn’t running the show here. The corporation is and there is no way that this would have gotten passed if SOMEONE wasn’t getting paid.
There is a worm in dat dere apple, we just can’t see it–YET. Partypup and Arraya called it out. Simply put, it is a bait and switch.
ParticipantYep, follow the money. No clue how this will pan out, but it is guaranteed to be worse either by quality of service, and/or by increased taxation. It may be worth it sometime soon to risk the $2000 fine, and pay for medical costs out of pocket. Dental “insurance” is really a “dental plan”—pay now or pay as you go….costs the same essentially.
Lots of fuzzy warm feelings to provide medical care for all. It’s nice to be altruistic, but altruism isn’t running the show here. The corporation is and there is no way that this would have gotten passed if SOMEONE wasn’t getting paid.
There is a worm in dat dere apple, we just can’t see it–YET. Partypup and Arraya called it out. Simply put, it is a bait and switch.
ParticipantYep, follow the money. No clue how this will pan out, but it is guaranteed to be worse either by quality of service, and/or by increased taxation. It may be worth it sometime soon to risk the $2000 fine, and pay for medical costs out of pocket. Dental “insurance” is really a “dental plan”—pay now or pay as you go….costs the same essentially.
Lots of fuzzy warm feelings to provide medical care for all. It’s nice to be altruistic, but altruism isn’t running the show here. The corporation is and there is no way that this would have gotten passed if SOMEONE wasn’t getting paid.
There is a worm in dat dere apple, we just can’t see it–YET. Partypup and Arraya called it out. Simply put, it is a bait and switch.
Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=CA renter]
I’m all for saving old buildings and making sure they are kept in the hands of people who appreciate them.[/quote]
I’m for saving some old building too, for example those nice bank buildings downtown.
But I’m not for saving old wood cottages. If people want to build on their land, they should be allowed to develop their land.
You can easily replicate an old wood cottage. Nobody in his right mind would do so because of the economic costs.
We end up with run down areas like OB and North Park because of building restriction.[/quote]
Actually, Brian, what destroyed North Park neighborhoods was LACK of building restrictions. During the 70’s many SFRs were torn down and replaced by apartment complexes. Ugly ones. Most of them eyesores. In the 1920’s, there was more emphasis on creating houses/structures that were aesthetically pleasing. Nowadays, not so much.
Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=CA renter]
I’m all for saving old buildings and making sure they are kept in the hands of people who appreciate them.[/quote]
I’m for saving some old building too, for example those nice bank buildings downtown.
But I’m not for saving old wood cottages. If people want to build on their land, they should be allowed to develop their land.
You can easily replicate an old wood cottage. Nobody in his right mind would do so because of the economic costs.
We end up with run down areas like OB and North Park because of building restriction.[/quote]
Actually, Brian, what destroyed North Park neighborhoods was LACK of building restrictions. During the 70’s many SFRs were torn down and replaced by apartment complexes. Ugly ones. Most of them eyesores. In the 1920’s, there was more emphasis on creating houses/structures that were aesthetically pleasing. Nowadays, not so much.
Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=CA renter]
I’m all for saving old buildings and making sure they are kept in the hands of people who appreciate them.[/quote]
I’m for saving some old building too, for example those nice bank buildings downtown.
But I’m not for saving old wood cottages. If people want to build on their land, they should be allowed to develop their land.
You can easily replicate an old wood cottage. Nobody in his right mind would do so because of the economic costs.
We end up with run down areas like OB and North Park because of building restriction.[/quote]
Actually, Brian, what destroyed North Park neighborhoods was LACK of building restrictions. During the 70’s many SFRs were torn down and replaced by apartment complexes. Ugly ones. Most of them eyesores. In the 1920’s, there was more emphasis on creating houses/structures that were aesthetically pleasing. Nowadays, not so much.
Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=CA renter]
I’m all for saving old buildings and making sure they are kept in the hands of people who appreciate them.[/quote]
I’m for saving some old building too, for example those nice bank buildings downtown.
But I’m not for saving old wood cottages. If people want to build on their land, they should be allowed to develop their land.
You can easily replicate an old wood cottage. Nobody in his right mind would do so because of the economic costs.
We end up with run down areas like OB and North Park because of building restriction.[/quote]
Actually, Brian, what destroyed North Park neighborhoods was LACK of building restrictions. During the 70’s many SFRs were torn down and replaced by apartment complexes. Ugly ones. Most of them eyesores. In the 1920’s, there was more emphasis on creating houses/structures that were aesthetically pleasing. Nowadays, not so much.
Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=CA renter]
I’m all for saving old buildings and making sure they are kept in the hands of people who appreciate them.[/quote]
I’m for saving some old building too, for example those nice bank buildings downtown.
But I’m not for saving old wood cottages. If people want to build on their land, they should be allowed to develop their land.
You can easily replicate an old wood cottage. Nobody in his right mind would do so because of the economic costs.
We end up with run down areas like OB and North Park because of building restriction.[/quote]
Actually, Brian, what destroyed North Park neighborhoods was LACK of building restrictions. During the 70’s many SFRs were torn down and replaced by apartment complexes. Ugly ones. Most of them eyesores. In the 1920’s, there was more emphasis on creating houses/structures that were aesthetically pleasing. Nowadays, not so much.
ParticipantWow. I am all for pets, but I prefer pets with a single or couple. I have had families with NO pets, and their small children destroyed the place. Broken blinds, broken built in drawers, and more… they were just really hard on the place.
On the other hand, pet owners are a bit more desperate because as noted in this thread, landlords don’t want to rent to tenants with pets.
Of the 4 different tenants that have had pets, every time the house was returned in good condition. I think it is more important to see the pet, and understand the person/s relationship with the animal. For instance, I would rather take a female with an inside dachsund, rather than a family with 2 outside Pitbulls.(nothing against Pits, they are actually wonderful, loving dogs, but many of the people that choose Pits are not so wonderful) Or a couple with a lab, rather than a couple with 2 small chihuahua dogs (they urinate constantly and are hard to housebreak). It really all depends.
I always specify…”pets on approval.”
ParticipantWow. I am all for pets, but I prefer pets with a single or couple. I have had families with NO pets, and their small children destroyed the place. Broken blinds, broken built in drawers, and more… they were just really hard on the place.
On the other hand, pet owners are a bit more desperate because as noted in this thread, landlords don’t want to rent to tenants with pets.
Of the 4 different tenants that have had pets, every time the house was returned in good condition. I think it is more important to see the pet, and understand the person/s relationship with the animal. For instance, I would rather take a female with an inside dachsund, rather than a family with 2 outside Pitbulls.(nothing against Pits, they are actually wonderful, loving dogs, but many of the people that choose Pits are not so wonderful) Or a couple with a lab, rather than a couple with 2 small chihuahua dogs (they urinate constantly and are hard to housebreak). It really all depends.
I always specify…”pets on approval.”
ParticipantWow. I am all for pets, but I prefer pets with a single or couple. I have had families with NO pets, and their small children destroyed the place. Broken blinds, broken built in drawers, and more… they were just really hard on the place.
On the other hand, pet owners are a bit more desperate because as noted in this thread, landlords don’t want to rent to tenants with pets.
Of the 4 different tenants that have had pets, every time the house was returned in good condition. I think it is more important to see the pet, and understand the person/s relationship with the animal. For instance, I would rather take a female with an inside dachsund, rather than a family with 2 outside Pitbulls.(nothing against Pits, they are actually wonderful, loving dogs, but many of the people that choose Pits are not so wonderful) Or a couple with a lab, rather than a couple with 2 small chihuahua dogs (they urinate constantly and are hard to housebreak). It really all depends.
I always specify…”pets on approval.”
ParticipantWow. I am all for pets, but I prefer pets with a single or couple. I have had families with NO pets, and their small children destroyed the place. Broken blinds, broken built in drawers, and more… they were just really hard on the place.
On the other hand, pet owners are a bit more desperate because as noted in this thread, landlords don’t want to rent to tenants with pets.
Of the 4 different tenants that have had pets, every time the house was returned in good condition. I think it is more important to see the pet, and understand the person/s relationship with the animal. For instance, I would rather take a female with an inside dachsund, rather than a family with 2 outside Pitbulls.(nothing against Pits, they are actually wonderful, loving dogs, but many of the people that choose Pits are not so wonderful) Or a couple with a lab, rather than a couple with 2 small chihuahua dogs (they urinate constantly and are hard to housebreak). It really all depends.
I always specify…”pets on approval.”
-
AuthorPosts
