1) i was thinking you'd drop by to check on the job, but the guys wanted to ask me to tell you that the plaster needs a second or third job. i think it's just cosmetic.
2) i noticed you put some paving stones out in the front. i was going to go get some at the beginning of august (i have a big home depot run planned), but i have to say that's a lot more than i was planning on. i won't touch the stones until you tell me what you want done with them. i was actually thinking that maybe the neighbour might want a little say in it, to be fair about the whole process of ripping down the garden. i *had* asked her not to cover the window, but she did anyways, which is why i just acted. my concern was/is just keeping the window clear; i have no meaningful opinion on the actual landscaping, subject to the practical request. if that's important to her, i have no objection to letting her take control of it - as long as the window stays clear.
3) i'm going to drop the request for the fire inspection because the fire separation to the basement seems to be re-established. just briefly, it seems like the philosophy in the fire code is about risk. there's almost no restrictions on single, detached units because the risk is only to the property owner, and increasing risks for larger and larger buildings because the risk is shared for more and more people. that is, the bigger the property is, the more people the landlord is making risks on behalf of, and the more stringent the requirements. i do feel there's some risk in having the furnace in the kitchen like that, but i don't feel there's any measurable risk down here anymore so i don't feel i have the moral or philosophical right to infringe on risks you decide on for you and your family - that would be characteristic of an overbearing tenant, which i'm trying not to be.
4) i am going to be building some large shelving units down here at the beginning of august (when i make that big home depot run) in the bedroom, living room and a few places in the hall around the kitchen. i want the shelving for books and cds and towels, but they could be used for anything. none of it will be attached to the wall or anything, it will all be free standing, but it's going to be measured and cut to fit the unit so it's going to more or less become a part of the unit. it will be easy enough to remove one day if you have to and/or you want to. but i would be unlikely to take these shelves with me (then again, i think i'm unlikely to move, too). regardless, if you want some influence on that, let me know. right now, i'm just thinking about very simple sealed and unpainted wood units...
5) lastly, i'm not sure if you're aware that the ontario energy board boosted gas prices by 40% on april 1 and that there's some expectation that this will happen a few more times in the next few years. gas is still waaaaaay cheaper than it was even five years ago, but you'd have to expect that's something the gas companies are out to equalize, and there might not be such a dramatic difference in price anymore four or five years from now. it's something to look into further before you switch the rest of the building over. it's a shame that solar is still so prohibitively expensive to install and upkeep, because it can actually generate electricity to *sell* and is the only way to really get off the grid.
j
Monday, July 14, 2014
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.
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.
yeah. i took the switch off and the connection had actually broken in half.
less than a year old.
i think they sell them at the dollar store across the street....
although i should point out it's made in china.
communist? yeah...
i need to relax, i'm really agitated.
the sound collage is coming along well, anyways.
it's supposed to sound like a time portal.
the conceptual basis of the piece was initially just some slowed down guitar chords, and it's turned into something more than it was meant to be, but, hey, do things to the most extreme possible...
less than a year old.
i think they sell them at the dollar store across the street....
although i should point out it's made in china.
communist? yeah...
i need to relax, i'm really agitated.
the sound collage is coming along well, anyways.
it's supposed to sound like a time portal.
the conceptual basis of the piece was initially just some slowed down guitar chords, and it's turned into something more than it was meant to be, but, hey, do things to the most extreme possible...
it's not that my $10 coffee machine refusing to work is catastrophic, it's that i am entirely cognizant of the reality that it was designed to break. if i had more time, i'd sue out of principle.
it's this idea of forced obsolescence. they actually teach graduate courses about it. it's fancy language for designing things in order to break, so they'll be repurchased. and, it's a central aspect of our throwaway, consumerist culture.
there's no use in boycotting because everybody does it. it's an industry standard in industry after industry. graduate level courses are usually for general application; it's getting the idea of making things badly across, so it can be applied on a general basis.
there's nothing in a coffee machine to break, so they design the switch badly on purpose. and, the way they did it is really dangerous. the burner comes on, but the pump doesn't.
result: a useless pile of plastic and metal, and another $0.50 of profit from me after taxes and payouts. ugh.
if we were to sit down and purposefully design the dumbest society possible, we really couldn't do much better than what we've already got.
and, of course there should be a law against it, but you've probably forgotten that regulating corporations is COMMUNISM.
COMMUNIST!!!
it's this idea of forced obsolescence. they actually teach graduate courses about it. it's fancy language for designing things in order to break, so they'll be repurchased. and, it's a central aspect of our throwaway, consumerist culture.
there's no use in boycotting because everybody does it. it's an industry standard in industry after industry. graduate level courses are usually for general application; it's getting the idea of making things badly across, so it can be applied on a general basis.
there's nothing in a coffee machine to break, so they design the switch badly on purpose. and, the way they did it is really dangerous. the burner comes on, but the pump doesn't.
result: a useless pile of plastic and metal, and another $0.50 of profit from me after taxes and payouts. ugh.
if we were to sit down and purposefully design the dumbest society possible, we really couldn't do much better than what we've already got.
and, of course there should be a law against it, but you've probably forgotten that regulating corporations is COMMUNISM.
COMMUNIST!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)