i will say this, though: i'll be able to measure the real level of malice by any rent increases i get.
i
know he can only raise rent by the cpi, which was very low last year,
here. the max increase before january 1 is about $5, and that will lock
him in for a year. the maximum increase for 2015 is about $10, but only a
year after the previous one. that's of little use to him, and not going
to affect me much.
the thing is i also know that he knows this, because i overheard it. so, we'll see about that.
he
drew up the lease and set the price. i didn't haggle him. i didn't ask
questions. again, i have little sympathy: if he's losing money, it's
because he set the price too low. i can't afford to correct that error.
if he signed a bad lease, it's something he'll have to deal with.
Sunday, July 13, 2014
actually,
no. the air outside is noticeably cooler right now, so it makes sense
to keep them closed for at least a few hours. but, given that the air is
going to be trying to push the temperature down here lower than 20, i
suspect they'll be open by the end of the night.
or i could leave the windows closed and let the heat come on.
i mean, that's what would actually happen. lol....
not any real fear it's going to hit 10-15. the heat will come on. but that's preposterous.
it would be good for demonstration, though.
the heat is set to 19. if i get to worst case during this week's cold snap, that's where it'll be for demonstration purposes.
i guess that really shows the contradiction, though. in order for it to be 20 upstairs, it's going to need to be less than 19 down here. but that's where i (quite reasonably) have the heat turned DOWN to for the summer. meaning the desired temperature upstairs is quite literally impossible to achieve with that hole in the floor.
and, i'm not above setting it to 21 in august, either.
i mean, i'm legally entitled to it.
to be clear: we're really both entitled to set the temperature in our respective units. of course. i don't begrudge the guy. i wish he had better control, too.
what we're seeing is why holes in the floor are not permitted by law. that's the problem...
i mean, what's going to happen right now is he's going to overheat while i'm freezing. the heat goes up, the coolants go down: he's cooling me while i'm heating him. we both lose. i happen to have entropy on my side, but it's really not good for either of us.
i'm convinced the hole gets patched this week....
back to constructing this sound collage, now.
or i could leave the windows closed and let the heat come on.
i mean, that's what would actually happen. lol....
not any real fear it's going to hit 10-15. the heat will come on. but that's preposterous.
it would be good for demonstration, though.
the heat is set to 19. if i get to worst case during this week's cold snap, that's where it'll be for demonstration purposes.
i guess that really shows the contradiction, though. in order for it to be 20 upstairs, it's going to need to be less than 19 down here. but that's where i (quite reasonably) have the heat turned DOWN to for the summer. meaning the desired temperature upstairs is quite literally impossible to achieve with that hole in the floor.
and, i'm not above setting it to 21 in august, either.
i mean, i'm legally entitled to it.
to be clear: we're really both entitled to set the temperature in our respective units. of course. i don't begrudge the guy. i wish he had better control, too.
what we're seeing is why holes in the floor are not permitted by law. that's the problem...
i mean, what's going to happen right now is he's going to overheat while i'm freezing. the heat goes up, the coolants go down: he's cooling me while i'm heating him. we both lose. i happen to have entropy on my side, but it's really not good for either of us.
i'm convinced the hole gets patched this week....
back to constructing this sound collage, now.
and
they're now open again. it went down about a half a degree in an hour
with them closed, which is too fast for my liking. it's already gone
back up .2 in ten minutes since i've re-opened.
i was thinking 25 was a good back and forth, but now i'm thinking more like 22. and i have to keep humidity in mind.
i was thinking 25 was a good back and forth, but now i'm thinking more like 22. and i have to keep humidity in mind.
note:
i overheard some people talking about the temperature upstairs, but i
didn't get a conclusion on the thought process. he seems to be noticing,
already.
the air is set to 20 degrees upstairs, which is about what i thought, and which means if i don't maintain open windows down here the hole in the floor means i can expect an indoor temperature of 10-15 down here, which is not "liveable".
so, i've got massive leverage.
i mean, the hole in the floor isn't legal. i'll waive it on various conditions, which includes the open window. it's just not reasonable to push an open floor AND an air conditioner set that low. it's one or the other.
knowing what it's set to up there will also help me understand when it's time to close the window at night.
the air is set to 20 degrees upstairs, which is about what i thought, and which means if i don't maintain open windows down here the hole in the floor means i can expect an indoor temperature of 10-15 down here, which is not "liveable".
so, i've got massive leverage.
i mean, the hole in the floor isn't legal. i'll waive it on various conditions, which includes the open window. it's just not reasonable to push an open floor AND an air conditioner set that low. it's one or the other.
knowing what it's set to up there will also help me understand when it's time to close the window at night.
no. i'm going to wait until it starts falling and guess if it's heat escaping out or the air overpowering.
i want to stop it from escaping, but if the air is overpowering i want to keep the window open.
as stated, the consequence of the cooling system in an enclosed basement is a meat locker. the window must be open at least some of the time. i just want to see if i can get away with sucking the heat in during the day and then keeping it in overnight, then sucking more in during the day, etc - rather than just keeping it open all the time.
see, it's going to be pumping upstairs if i close the window, and outside if i don't.
so, it's a question of just how much energy i can pull in.
i want to stop it from escaping, but if the air is overpowering i want to keep the window open.
as stated, the consequence of the cooling system in an enclosed basement is a meat locker. the window must be open at least some of the time. i just want to see if i can get away with sucking the heat in during the day and then keeping it in overnight, then sucking more in during the day, etc - rather than just keeping it open all the time.
see, it's going to be pumping upstairs if i close the window, and outside if i don't.
so, it's a question of just how much energy i can pull in.
after a little thought, i've decided to keep them open overnight. it
will flush the hot air out, yes, but it will hopefully also turn the a/c
off. i don't mind if the temperature in here goes up and down with the
outside temperature, it's that frigid refrigerated air that i won't
tolerate. i'd rather the outside cools it down down here on it's own,
and keeps the coolants upstairs.
this is going to dramatically affect the tenant upstairs, but they drilled a hole in the floor so what else am i supposed to do...
what was happening this morning was that the coolants were sinking, as would be expected. if i do nothing, that will get worse and worse until the entire basement is a few degrees cooler than the upstairs.
i can only guess that what's happening upstairs right now is that the hot, humid air from the windows is rising up through the duct. and, the strength of this will depend on the heat outside.
it's cooling down a little this week....
....but it'll be warm again next week. a full week of 30 degree weather with the windows wide open like this could plausibly render his machine useless.
but, it's really sort of one or the other: i freeze or he sweats. and, i have entropy on my side.
this is going to dramatically affect the tenant upstairs, but they drilled a hole in the floor so what else am i supposed to do...
what was happening this morning was that the coolants were sinking, as would be expected. if i do nothing, that will get worse and worse until the entire basement is a few degrees cooler than the upstairs.
i can only guess that what's happening upstairs right now is that the hot, humid air from the windows is rising up through the duct. and, the strength of this will depend on the heat outside.
it's cooling down a little this week....
....but it'll be warm again next week. a full week of 30 degree weather with the windows wide open like this could plausibly render his machine useless.
but, it's really sort of one or the other: i freeze or he sweats. and, i have entropy on my side.
windows are open, and they will probably not close for the summer (unless the floor is fixed).
it's definitely weird to stand in front of the window like it's a heat source. it's actually blowing in a little. but, i need the windows open. otherwise, this place is going to be a meat locker. and keep in mind i like it closer to 30 than 20.
it's definitely weird to stand in front of the window like it's a heat source. it's actually blowing in a little. but, i need the windows open. otherwise, this place is going to be a meat locker. and keep in mind i like it closer to 30 than 20.
if you throw the liberal philosophy and rhetoric about property rights out the window (and this is especially necessary in canada, where property rights are only weakly recognized by common law, and have no standing whatsoever at a constitutional level, being explicitly rejected by parliament (perhaps for political reasons, but nonetheless) repeatedly), the way "buying" property works in reality is something that is basically still feudal in nature.
the proposed constitutional amendment (which the conservatives actually voted down, afraid it was going to create social rights) was itself more or less useless. it said something like "nobody should be deprived of property, unless we say so - in which case we agree to compensate them for it". it was never worded in a way that allowed for real property rights, it was more of a right of compensation for state infringement on property. and, in truth that's what already exists in case law. the proposed, and defeated, amendment was not really meaningful, except to legislate existing case law.
the legal owner of every inch of property in canada (including virtually all native land reserves and virtually everything we refer to as "private property") is the crown, which in canada since 1981 (at the latest possible interpretation date) is legally considered to mean the federal government, to the chagrin of certain groups, but legally so nonetheless. the crown has split this giant area of land up into a very large number of fiefs, which it retains ownership of but passes certain privileges off in the form of various titles. the most common type of fief in the former british empire is the fee simple. fee simple is a title that allows the owner of the title (not the owner of the land) to develop the land in certain ways in exchange for a yearly rental fee, which we refer to as a property tax. actual ownership of land in canada is called allodial title, which is unheard of - it only exists in theory, as an abstract possibility.
see, this is where the liberal literature about property gets really confusing, which reduces to an educational fail. i mean, it's what they teach us in schools, so it's what people think is accurate. there's this widespread misunderstanding that property owners (note the language, which is suggestive) ultimately allodially own a piece of property, and that taxes and regulations on that property are consequently some kind of invasion of freedom. but this interpretation is purely projective. it's what liberals WANT to be true, but it has essentially no legal or traditional basis of any kind whatsoever in canada. it is really just simply *wrong* to try and understand property like this. if it's what you want, then get a gun and start a militia, because it's the only way you're going to get it. personally, i'm not much of a fan of understanding property like this. i'd rather talk about social ownership than private ownership.
but, neither of these things exist in canada. in reality, the crown owns the land, and the taxes paid are a yearly type of rent to use it, subject to the conditions laid out in laws (which are the rental agreements, and dictated by the state).
the truth is that this is the general form of rights in canada, and it may actually be the smarter way to do it, despite appearing weaker.
our rights are all of the form:
"all canadians have this right, unless we take it away, in which case we agree to compensate for it."
rather than american rights which are just generally of the form:
"all americans have this right."
...which *actually means*
"all americans have this right, unless we decide otherwise, in which case you're fucked."
the rule of law is another liberal fantasy that comes off as particularly hilarious when you look at the actual historical record.
but this isn't yet another anarchist rant....
the proposed constitutional amendment (which the conservatives actually voted down, afraid it was going to create social rights) was itself more or less useless. it said something like "nobody should be deprived of property, unless we say so - in which case we agree to compensate them for it". it was never worded in a way that allowed for real property rights, it was more of a right of compensation for state infringement on property. and, in truth that's what already exists in case law. the proposed, and defeated, amendment was not really meaningful, except to legislate existing case law.
the legal owner of every inch of property in canada (including virtually all native land reserves and virtually everything we refer to as "private property") is the crown, which in canada since 1981 (at the latest possible interpretation date) is legally considered to mean the federal government, to the chagrin of certain groups, but legally so nonetheless. the crown has split this giant area of land up into a very large number of fiefs, which it retains ownership of but passes certain privileges off in the form of various titles. the most common type of fief in the former british empire is the fee simple. fee simple is a title that allows the owner of the title (not the owner of the land) to develop the land in certain ways in exchange for a yearly rental fee, which we refer to as a property tax. actual ownership of land in canada is called allodial title, which is unheard of - it only exists in theory, as an abstract possibility.
see, this is where the liberal literature about property gets really confusing, which reduces to an educational fail. i mean, it's what they teach us in schools, so it's what people think is accurate. there's this widespread misunderstanding that property owners (note the language, which is suggestive) ultimately allodially own a piece of property, and that taxes and regulations on that property are consequently some kind of invasion of freedom. but this interpretation is purely projective. it's what liberals WANT to be true, but it has essentially no legal or traditional basis of any kind whatsoever in canada. it is really just simply *wrong* to try and understand property like this. if it's what you want, then get a gun and start a militia, because it's the only way you're going to get it. personally, i'm not much of a fan of understanding property like this. i'd rather talk about social ownership than private ownership.
but, neither of these things exist in canada. in reality, the crown owns the land, and the taxes paid are a yearly type of rent to use it, subject to the conditions laid out in laws (which are the rental agreements, and dictated by the state).
the truth is that this is the general form of rights in canada, and it may actually be the smarter way to do it, despite appearing weaker.
our rights are all of the form:
"all canadians have this right, unless we take it away, in which case we agree to compensate for it."
rather than american rights which are just generally of the form:
"all americans have this right."
...which *actually means*
"all americans have this right, unless we decide otherwise, in which case you're fucked."
the rule of law is another liberal fantasy that comes off as particularly hilarious when you look at the actual historical record.
but this isn't yet another anarchist rant....
see, again: i'm not getting malice. he's legitimately interested in "getting it to code". and, the idea that recycling air between apartments is not a good one did make sense once i pointed it out: we're talking disease, smell, smoke, food, sound and anything and everything else going through the vents. he seemed to be most concerned about the value of the apartment given that change, and it alone might be enough to get him to patch the holes back up.
but, i'm still not sure he's getting the abstraction that this is an apartment and not a home. running through the fire code, it seemed to be that the regulations become increasingly strict depending on how many people are involved - which is itself just flat out stupid, but it reflects the (very stupid) dominant ideology in capitalism about risk and consequence.
if you own a detached house with one occupant (probably you), there are almost no rules about where to put the furnace. as a single occupant, you're allowed to take on as much risk as you'd want. risk to the neighbours doesn't seem to be factored in.
but, as the size of the apartment grows and the people that the landlord is taking risks *on behalf of* increases, the regulations increase. in other words, the legal reason he can't put a furnace in the kitchen is because he's not allowed to take that risk on my behalf (and the behalf of the other tenants).
but, i can't explain it like that because i'll be asked to waive the risk. it'll be viewed as negotiable. i don't own the risk, myself, it's collective in the building. i suppose the building could vote on it, but i'm more interested in what the fire code expert says about the nature of the risk.
he just kept going back to "normally, in a house..." and "the house code says..", despite repeatedly pointing out that these aren't the right codes.
but it's not malicious. he wants it done right, too.
but, i'm still not sure he's getting the abstraction that this is an apartment and not a home. running through the fire code, it seemed to be that the regulations become increasingly strict depending on how many people are involved - which is itself just flat out stupid, but it reflects the (very stupid) dominant ideology in capitalism about risk and consequence.
if you own a detached house with one occupant (probably you), there are almost no rules about where to put the furnace. as a single occupant, you're allowed to take on as much risk as you'd want. risk to the neighbours doesn't seem to be factored in.
but, as the size of the apartment grows and the people that the landlord is taking risks *on behalf of* increases, the regulations increase. in other words, the legal reason he can't put a furnace in the kitchen is because he's not allowed to take that risk on my behalf (and the behalf of the other tenants).
but, i can't explain it like that because i'll be asked to waive the risk. it'll be viewed as negotiable. i don't own the risk, myself, it's collective in the building. i suppose the building could vote on it, but i'm more interested in what the fire code expert says about the nature of the risk.
he just kept going back to "normally, in a house..." and "the house code says..", despite repeatedly pointing out that these aren't the right codes.
but it's not malicious. he wants it done right, too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)