return2ozmaCalifornia Bill Would Require Landlords to Accept Pets
Yeather“Goolsby now has four dogs, seven cats, a fish and a bird.”
The woman in the article has over 10 animals. This isn’t a renters vs landlords thing this is an irresponsible pet owner.
Flying SquidTo be fair, right after that, the article says:
Haney said his legislation would likely limit the number of pets landlords must accept and allow landlords to require pet liability insurance. Details on how many pets would be covered under the bill are still being worked out.
But I also don’t think this bill is worth giving a shit about when people without pets can’t even afford to rent.
That’s true, I think it’s disengenuous of the article to try and play both sides here. Luckily I don’t live in the hell hole that is San Fransisco.
Whether you do or not, people have to because that’s where the jobs are. And they can’t afford to. And that’s the real problem.
Learn to plumb or be an electrician. Both are very in demand and pay well.
I’m not sure what you’re talking about. Do you think everyone in San Francisco can be a plumber or an electrician?
People need to do things like work the espresso machine at Starbucks because, at least for now, we don’t have robots to do it. And they can’t afford to live in the city.
No, not everyone in San Fransisco can be an electrician or plumber, but the many that are complaining about high prices of rent can learn a trade and move to lower cost areas where the pay is good. The people working Starbucks espresso machines are in the same boat. If you’re working 40+ hours a week and can’t find a place with roomates to live you need to move somewhere more affordable.
If you’re working 40+ hours a week and can’t find a place with roomates to live you need to move somewhere more affordable.
Fine. Who is going to make the coffee? Or flip the burgers? Or wash the dishes? Or deliver pizza?
Should San Francisco not have any low-cost food options?
Because you sure don’t sound like you think service industry workers deserve more pay.
If you cannot afford to live in San Fransisco you shouldn’t live in San Fransisco. If all of these people left, the market would fall to the point where the city becomes affordable again. The rich hate being inconvenienced more than anything, and if all these workers moved to cheaper areas they would feel it.
You think only rich people drink coffee and expect to eat off of clean dishes? Really?
Also, what cheaper areas would those be? And why should they have to endure even longer commutes than they already endure?
All of this sounds like you want to punish poor people because they’re poor.
If you’re poor you shouldn’t be getting Starbucks regularly, make your own coffee for cheaper. Cheaper areas are all around, smaller cities across America where your wages stretch farther. Not everyone needs to live in the bay area.
m-p{3}So the Starbucks employee should like in eternal squalor and be grateful to barely make ends meet. But hey, those more fortunate needs their expensive coffee too, that money will trickle down any day now.
Starbucks employees shouldn’t be rich, it’s an entry level food service job. People that make a decent living work better jobs, or are good enough at their starbucks jobs that they become manager and move up the chain to the point they can make a decent living.
Yet they still need the ability to pay their rent to work where they’re needed.
Yes, like in a less expensive area, where the wages they get would go a lot farther.
So you end up with no Starbuck in LA.
This person lives in the middle of nowhere to the extent that it’s surprising that they have internet access. This person has never been near a city of more than 100,000 people and just watches TV nonstop while complaining about how horrible people are who live in different places and in different ways.
Currently in a city of ~330,000. Sitting comfortably and watching youtube.
City lol
You’re not a city until you hit 1m. Until then you’re a large town with an inflated ego.
“You’re not a city until you hit 1m.” So what you’re saying is there are only 9 cities in the entire United States? I think you have your definitions wrong, or you live in New York / Los Angeles and have no clue what most of the US is like.
Worse: there are really only three cities in the US: NYC, San Fran, and Chicago. They are the only ones that meet the definition that people around the world accept as being a city. The rest of the US is just large towns unless you’re going to argue that Omaha is like Paris somehow.
There is in fact no generally agreed uppon definition of a city. Most people would call Boston a city, but it only has 675k people. Most people wouldn’t call Wells a city, but the British do. Most people would call London a city, but not the British. Generally, a city is a defined area with more density than surrounding areas over 100,000 people, and a significant other factor, be it cultural, administrative, or historical.
On your second point, the US has nine cities over the 1 million mark according to the 2020 census. New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Phoenix, San Diego, and Dallas. Boston is number 25 with 675k.
Good riddance