yup. hole's getting patched. the logic i provided was entirely accepted.

very relieving. and he actually seems happy i pointed it out to save him headaches down the road.

i also received a verification that the unit is older than 1998, as it was here when he bought it in 1996.

that's useful to know.

Rules relating to rent

(2) Sections 104, 111, 112, 120, 121, 122, 126 to 133, 165 and 167 do not apply with respect to a rental unit if,

(a) it was not occupied for any purpose before June 17, 1998;

section 120 is rent control, reducing rent increases to cpi. units built after 1998 are NOT subject to this legal restriction.

that's a helluva fucking loophole in the law. supposedly, it's to provide "incentives" to build new units which "provides jobs".

this is politician-speak for class warfare.

but i'm safe. was worried, as he mentioned this unit was an add-on...

i had a little talk with him, and i'm not really the problem unit. i mean, i'm not running a/c and so long as the unit is insulated it should hold summer heat deep into the fall.

i didn't have to turn the heat on down here until the polar vortex hit. presuming the winter is nowhere near as cold as last year, i should be the least of his problems.

it's actually the unit on the other side that is costing him.

he admitted to not thinking it through.

we may actually get some better insulation in out of the ordeal.