Let's bring this back on topic (who is running for mayor) and discuss cycling in a cycling thread. Thanks.
|
|
|
- Thread starter King of Kensington
- Start date
Northern Light
Superstar
And with that, how about we start looking at Gil Penalosa's campaign promises (which he hides well by putting them under the 'news' section of his website!
Parks:
Truthfully, its quite modest as promises go; its very do-able..........and entirely supportable.
Northern Light
Superstar
What else is Gil Penalosa promising?
Well, this:
I like this, agree with this, endorse this......thumbs up!
There's also a plan for Shelters, which we can come back to later, I want to leave room for discussion on different points. More campaign planks to come.
Well, this:
I like this, agree with this, endorse this......thumbs up!
There's also a plan for Shelters, which we can come back to later, I want to leave room for discussion on different points. More campaign planks to come.
SashaLemon
Active Member
So it's safe to say that everybody on UT will vote for Gil?
picard102
Senior Member
So landlords will be required to install AC in each unit?
Will they be able to apply for above guideline increases as a result?
Do tenants who have their own AC units get skipped?
Using the Freedumb convoy as a reason to get rid of mounted units loses me entirely.
Will they be able to apply for above guideline increases as a result?
Do tenants who have their own AC units get skipped?
Using the Freedumb convoy as a reason to get rid of mounted units loses me entirely.
Northern Light
Superstar
Likely, yes, though there are other cooling technologies available; and retrofits aren't necessarily any cheaper and may be more expensive than A/C units.
But we'd have to see the details in a by-law.
That would be a provincial decision, the City has no control over that.
That wouldn't really make any sense from a practical perspective.
Cities all over the world are cutting their mounted units and were long before recent protests.
They have very limited utility and very expensive to maintain for what is largely PR value plus rare Public order situations, the latter of which there are better options available.
picard102
Senior Member
Citing someone being "trampled" due to their own stupidity, supporting the convoys narrative, isn't something I want to see in any politicians communications.
toaster29
Active Member
Why so much disdain for an idea that would make life more comfortable for people? For pets?
If you own rental property in Toronto, you are doing pretty well. If the idea of installing AC in your units (or any other government policy that would cost you money) upsets you, then maybe invest elsewhere? Obviously real estate and being a landlord has been good to most people, and they would rather pay to install an AC unit than get out of it altogether.
picard102
Senior Member
Asking questions about proposed policy implementation isn't disdain.
It's the bare minimum voters should do unless they are ideologically locked to their positions.
DirectionNorth
Active Member
So far it just says "maximum temperature". I'm not familiar with the current minimum temperature requirement in the winter, but I assume that any AC requirements will be similar to that.
I hope not, with the heat we've been getting.
Probably, but when they move out, the landlord will probably have to install AC for new tenants.
(I'm just speculating here, by the way)
toaster29
Active Member
To be clear, I don't think having questions shows disdain, it's the words you chose in your questions that show the disdain.
"So landlords will be required to install AC in each unit?" --> It's very leading, to require someone to do something implies the action is against one's will. A better question would be "Will each unit in the City receive air conditioning?" This way there is no disdain in the question.
"Will they be able to apply for above guideline increases as a result?" --> This questions seems a little facetious, implying that any cost a landlord has to incur to meet the policy requirements sure better get passed down to the tenant. Being a landlord is a business endeavour. Policies change, and businesses adapt, and costs change.
Do tenants who have their own AC units get skipped? --> This one is fine, doesn't really show disdain.
picard102
Senior Member
It's your bias that creates disdain where none existed.
It is against their will. This is a fact, not commentary.
Wondering if my rent will go up as a result is facetious? You don't think other renters will ask this as well in an environment where landlords are doing the most to extract maximum rents?
Oh thank god, I was worried I'd get all my questions wrong.
Northern Light
Superstar
How about we leave all the motive assertions out of things all around and instead stick to the substance of the matter, on which we may be free to disagree?
On that point, there are literally people dying in their units in this province as a result of the heat; the heat waves in Vancouver last years claimed at least several hundred lives as did one in Montreal in an earlier year.
As such, I don't think its reasonable to allow anyone's apartment to reach a temperature that makes it uninhabitable.
Many people cannot afford air conditioning, and many who can have landlord's who resist its installation.
***
On a personal note, I have a very nice apartment, 3brdm, which I rent with southern exposure and a view. I'm comparatively comfortable.........but
My apartment does not have any central air. Fortunately, I can afford to install it and pay the associated bill.
But you know, in my case, I have one window and 2 portable air conditioners and still the temperature in the apartment during the recent heatwave exceeded 25C at times in some rooms and with 75% humidity that felt in the 30s....
At times, that made it challenging to get my work done (I primarily work from home). .Aside from the $1,200 I spent buying the A/C units.......... my monthly electricity bill shot up from $60 to over $250 last month.
Again, I'm good.........but I can imagine for many on fixed incomes that's completely untenable.
How should we handle people at-risk, who can't afford a solution? Should we endure the cost of having an ambulance respond to a 911 call, as we take them to a hospital to be cooled down and hydrated.....at a cost (911, paramedics, 1 night in an E/R) of ~$5,000 sit on the tax bill because the landlord chose not to provide A/C? Certainly, I don't think that makes any sense.
I think its perfectly reasonable to require a maximum temperature for the same reason as we require a minimum one; if the place you provide to live is not livable you cannot be allowed to rent it out as if it were.
I'd be happy to have a reasonable discussion of how changing standards should be paid for; (tax credits, landlord costs, gov't subsidy, etc etc.) or any mix or match of these, so long as we agree that livable conditions must be provided.
We don't set minimum standards for people of physical and financial means to mitigate their problems, we set them for those who cannot.
On that point, there are literally people dying in their units in this province as a result of the heat; the heat waves in Vancouver last years claimed at least several hundred lives as did one in Montreal in an earlier year.
As such, I don't think its reasonable to allow anyone's apartment to reach a temperature that makes it uninhabitable.
Many people cannot afford air conditioning, and many who can have landlord's who resist its installation.
***
On a personal note, I have a very nice apartment, 3brdm, which I rent with southern exposure and a view. I'm comparatively comfortable.........but
My apartment does not have any central air. Fortunately, I can afford to install it and pay the associated bill.
But you know, in my case, I have one window and 2 portable air conditioners and still the temperature in the apartment during the recent heatwave exceeded 25C at times in some rooms and with 75% humidity that felt in the 30s....
At times, that made it challenging to get my work done (I primarily work from home). .Aside from the $1,200 I spent buying the A/C units.......... my monthly electricity bill shot up from $60 to over $250 last month.
Again, I'm good.........but I can imagine for many on fixed incomes that's completely untenable.
How should we handle people at-risk, who can't afford a solution? Should we endure the cost of having an ambulance respond to a 911 call, as we take them to a hospital to be cooled down and hydrated.....at a cost (911, paramedics, 1 night in an E/R) of ~$5,000 sit on the tax bill because the landlord chose not to provide A/C? Certainly, I don't think that makes any sense.
I think its perfectly reasonable to require a maximum temperature for the same reason as we require a minimum one; if the place you provide to live is not livable you cannot be allowed to rent it out as if it were.
I'd be happy to have a reasonable discussion of how changing standards should be paid for; (tax credits, landlord costs, gov't subsidy, etc etc.) or any mix or match of these, so long as we agree that livable conditions must be provided.
We don't set minimum standards for people of physical and financial means to mitigate their problems, we set them for those who cannot.
Would these standards (which I agree with) be best set and administered provincially rather than municipally?
Northern Light
Superstar
Perhaps, but the minimum temperature in winter is a Toronto municipal by-law.