|
PT6A posted:Let's face it, government-provided housing has a really, really bad reputation pretty much everywhere. Whether it's the projects in the US, council flats in the UK, Khruschyovkas throughout the Eastern Bloc, or pretty much any other example I can think of, they're all pretty bad. It could be done right, in theory, but all available evidence and history suggests that it won't be. These things here are the bottom of the barrel of social housing from the dankest depths of one of the most repressive flavors of communism in history short of North Korea (Romania):  They are shoddy beyond belief, ugly as sin and entire old and vibrant city quarters were eradicated to build them. But just about everyone could afford them and people usually managed to make pretty nice homes on the inside and did their best to keep them from falling apart. Literally among the worst social housing ever built, but still managed to prevent rampant homelessness and give people, if nothing else, shelter and a place to call their own. It's not exactly difficult to avoid making the same mistakes as Communist Romania or "The Projects". Don't make them all brutalist monoliths, don't just cordon off all of them in some god-forsaken food-desert where rich people don't have to look at them, and ensure high transit availability - just off the top of my head. Most new social housing is spread around the city and mixed in with regular residences - you wouldn't know it was social housing unless you asked. None of this is any great secret - cities know how to build them just fine, certainly Vancouver, they just need the money and/or land.
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 20:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 21:16 |
|
|
And seriously, do you really think shoddy government housing is shoddy because it's provided by the government and not, say, because it wasn't allocated the appropriate funds for maintenance (or proper construction to begin with)? making GBS threads on social housing is the textboox example of the conservative strategy of 1) depriving a government service of the funds necessary to operate effectively and then 2) show off that same service as a perfect example of how government is never effective at anything.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 20:42
|
|
|
If your goal is "Stick all these minorities somewhere out of sight" you're going to end up with ghettos. If you're a poor undeveloped country rebuilding after a devastating war you're going to end up with housing that isn't up to western standards. None of those are remotely fair comparisons and a lot of state/city owned or manages housing works out great in many places. The key is that the goal is to provide housing for everyone but the richest, not just ghettos for the poorest. The failure of state owned housing in the UK and US are well understood and easily avoidable. It has nothing to do with "government can't do anything right free market free market" and everything to do with those projects simply being convenient places to shuffle (often forced) marginalized people off to. At fist many were ok or even fairly successful, but hey why not continuously cut funding to these projects, it's all marginalized people so who cares? Why not cut all the associated social programs that were supposed to go along with the housing projects? Oh hey these places are massive failures now, surprise. When a big chunk of the working and middle class population lives in such buildings you don't get these problems because it's not some small marginalized minority you can throw under the bus.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 20:46
|
|
|
Planned government housing, hell planned cities don't really adhere to a particular political ideology. It was modernist-driven beliefs about how to best structure society that really drove a lot of government megaprojects, from hydro dams to state planned neighbourhoods. Private developments can fall into the same trap, and arguably a lot of suburban development comes with its own set of sustainability issues. Governments can do better by talking to people whose housing they're trying to improve, and learning the neighbourhoods they seek to fix up from the neighbours rather than trying to impose a master plan from above.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 20:47
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:If your goal is "Stick all these minorities somewhere out of sight" you're going to end up with ghettos. If you're a poor undeveloped country rebuilding after a devastating war you're going to end up with housing that isn't up to western standards. None of those are remotely fair comparisons and a lot of state/city owned or manages housing works out great in many places. The key is that the goal is to provide housing for everyone but the richest, not just ghettos for the poorest. What about the secondary black-market that's almost sure to crop up when desirable places are being offered at less than market value?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 20:50
|
|
|
PT6A posted:What about the secondary black-market that's almost sure to crop up when desirable places are being offered at less than market value? I don't intend to pick on Baronjutter specifically, but this is the primary thing that most socialist idealists either forget about, or don't acknowledge the presence of. I had lunch this weekend with a Venezuelan ex-pat friend who was telling me about the various state-subsidized goodies (before it all went pear shaped)... that promptly disappear over the border to Columbia where they are sold for 4-5x profit. It makes me want to forcibly tattoo Arbitrage Opportunities WILL Be Exploited under the eyelids of anyone who suggests these things.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 20:56
|
|
|
Sounds like they need to expand the housing stock if that's a problem, or let the free market try to pick up the slack so long as they can compete with the cheap non-profit rents. Also who the gently caress cares about a minor black market or favouritism within a state-run housing scheme compared to the insane inefficiencies and failures of the current free-market system of housing? How can one look at Vancouver and say "well yes government housing would solve a lot of problems but what about potential black markets, I read in the soviet union you could often get better housing by knowing the right people or bribes! No no that's not a perfect system." Yeah our current system is working real good.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 20:56
|
|
|
My girlfriend's parents just sold their house today. It needs an absolute minimum of $50K work done to it, is a 10 minute walk from Finch station on a smallish lot of land that borders onto a goddamned hydro field and they got $830K for it. They bought it 25 years ago for a pittance and, needless to say, they are very happy with the selling price. There was no bidding war and, they in fact lowered their price by a little over ten grand. They sold because their neighbour down the street got $900K for his house a few months ago and they intended to downsize anyways. I am happy for them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 21:01
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Sounds like they need to expand the housing stock if that's a problem, or let the free market try to pick up the slack so long as they can compete with the cheap non-profit rents. Our current system is not working well, but I don't think your solution would work well either. At most, it might work slightly better and be very expensive and time-consuming to implement. I'd rather see by-laws used to encourage the development of dense rental housing, instead of putting a whole bunch of rental housing under the direct control of the government.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 21:02
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Our current system is not working well, but I don't think your solution would work well either. At most, it might work slightly better and be very expensive and time-consuming to implement. I'd rather see by-laws used to encourage the development of dense rental housing, instead of putting a whole bunch of rental housing under the direct control of the government. I'd like to see fixed-income funds of various kinds get into the rental property management business (as is common in Germany etc). It seems to provide a decent symbiosis of cash flow (for the fund) and long-term stability (for the tenant). Of course, it can't happen until our price:rent ratio drastically drops because fund managers aren't idiots and can find wayyyyy higher NPV investments elsewhere. Welp.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 21:06
|
|
|
Yeah, changes in bylaws and finance that made rentals more stable and attractive would also be a plus, anything that just grows the stock of rentals and normalizes renting. I just don't trust the market to do anything right or efficiently.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 21:09
|
|
|
See: My post earlier about laneway housing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 21:11
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Yeah, changes in bylaws and finance that made rentals more stable and attractive would also be a plus, anything that just grows the stock of rentals and normalizes renting. I just don't trust the market to do anything right or efficiently. Then why do you trust that the market will keep away from government-owned housing? What happens when you have a dispute with the landlord, or miss a rent payment, and now you're excluded from the vast majority of rental properties (or, conversely, if you make it impossible for the government to do this, what motivation do people have to treat the property with respect and pay their rent on time)?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 21:12
|
|
|
Twiin posted:I guess we should stop living in third floor apartments and two-story townhomes also.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 21:18
|
|
|
Lexicon posted:I don't intend to pick on Baronjutter specifically, but this is the primary thing that most socialist idealists either forget about, or don't acknowledge the presence of. I had lunch this weekend with a Venezuelan ex-pat friend who was telling me about the various state-subsidized goodies (before it all went pear shaped)... that promptly disappear over the border to Columbia where they are sold for 4-5x profit. I actually agree that this is not taken into account with far too many well-meaning initiatives. I mean in many ways what got us into this mess to begin with is very much that: let's have the government help people own homes by underwriting more of the risk -> banks happily gobble up all these risky-but-not-to-them mortgages and it is they, not homeowners, that ended up benefitting most. And that is actually precisely why I don't agree that we should just find a way to "subsidize" or "incentivize" private rentals. There are far too many opportunities for the landlords to end up gaining the lion's share of any such investment. Moreover, although this isn't necessarily a part of social housing (and could be done without direct operation of social housing), I think it is much better if the city (or province, or whoever) outright owns and hangs on to the land it builds public housing on. When you don't do that you get into this silly situation where the better you make your city, the more you have to pay for such services because the underlying land value keeps going up. On the flip side, what sort of arbitrage opportunities do the tenants of socialized housing gain exactly? They obviously can't just "sell it over the border", nor would there ever be a reason for anyone to be allocated more than one unit which they could sublet for profit. Nor does it make any sense to sublet their one unit when they would have to pay market-price rent to actually live somewhere. I suppose people with more rooms than they strictly need could take some off-the-books room-mates in, but that is hardly a threat to the entire system. I suppose people might sublet an apartment in an expensive area (e.g. downtown) at full market price and commute from Surrey or something, but again, the gains there are minimal (you get to pocket the difference in rent at the cost of a hefty increase to commute time), and anyway, housing programs are going to screen applicants for such high-demand locations so they go to the people that need them most: e.g. you have kids and you don't want to switch schools, or the area is actually not transit accessible and that's where you work. These people by definition don't really have the option for any such funny-business. Mrs. Wynand fucked around with this message at 21:39 on Mar 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 21:26
|
|
|
Mr. Wynand posted:I actually agree that this is not taken into account with far too many well-meaning initiatives. I mean in many ways what got us into this mess to begin with is very much that: let's have the government help people own homes by underwriting more of the risk -> banks happily gobble up all these risky-but-not-to-them mortgages and it is they, not homeowners, that ended up benefitting most. Unless you ensure that people cannot, under any circumstances, move between apartments, there's going to be arbitrage opportunities. Look at sepermuta.com, the service that exists to help people do just this with government-provided housing in Cuba. It's technically illegal to accept or offer consideration for a housing swap, but it goes on every single day. The only thing that can realistically solve this problem (i.e. that some units are going to be more desirable than others) is to price them based on desirability, which leads us right back to market pricing where we started.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 21:32
|
|
|
Mr. Wynand posted:I actually agree that this is not taken into account with far too many well-meaning initiatives. I mean in many ways what got us into this mess to begin with is very much that: let's have the government help people own homes by underwriting more of the risk -> banks happily gobble up all these risky-but-not-to-them mortgages and it is they, not homeowners, that ended up benefitting most. That's a really good point, and it's a tough nut to crack. Mr. Wynand posted:On the flip side, what sort of arbitrage opportunities do the tenants of socialized housing gain exactly? They obviously can't just "sell it over the border", nor would there ever be a reason for anyone to be allocated more than one unit which they could sublet for profit. Nor does it make any sense to sublet their one unit when they would have to pay market-price rent to actually live somewhere. I suppose people with more rooms than they strictly need could take some off-the-books room-mates in, but that is hardly a threat to the entire system. I can give you a personal example: years ago, before we met, my girlfriend rented a place near Granville Island in Vancouver, right on the seawall. It transpired that the landlord, who gave the impression she owned the place, was in fact a tenant under a socialized housing scheme (I'm not sure if it was run by the CoV or BC). She rented one room to my girlfriend (who left soon after as she turned out to be a psycho) at market rate and was in the process of renting out the other rooms while herself living at her own boyfriend's place. Arbitrage. I think it's well within human capability to ensure these sorts of accommodations go to people who (a) need them on an income/asset basis, and (b) won't turn around and arbitrage them, but it's far, far harder than any organizer of these programs seems to realize. Lexicon fucked around with this message at 21:37 on Mar 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 21:35
|
|
|
Saltin posted:I don't disagree with your analysis. I would say your income figures are from 2006 and would suggest in these neighbourhoods in particular the complexion has changed somewhat. The influx of DINKS about to work on the no kids part is flabbergasting, they all earn. Again, I am not saying a correction is not due, it is, but you won't find the biggest bargins in the inner suburbs of a big city when they come. You'll find them in places like Ajax and St Catherines and Barrie, where the houses are just as stupidly priced , but required oceans of gas to be liveable and have none of the amenities to drive demand. I think the income figures are from 2006, but with wage gains averaging about 1% annually since then, it's not a stretch to say that there's no way that the astronomical price gains (what, 7% annually on average?) for housing in the area bounded by the DVP, the lake, and Victoria Park is due to anything but cheap, easy credit and people refusing to look past what their monthly payment is at 3%. There just aren't enough people with actual wealth or high income to move the market, and it's not like all that many people have moved in over the past eight years. The Maclean's article linked a couple of pages back mentioned a house at Dundas and Parliament that went for just over half a million dollars. I could get a two-bedroom oceanfront condo in Palm Beach with that money and still have $100,000 left over.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 21:52
|
|
|
Is it even a big problem? It seems like a red herring to me, like people who want food stamps destroyed in the US because "I saw someone buying lobster with food stamps once!". Any system with humans involved is going to have people trying to game the system, the key is to create a system that does it's job as efficiently as possible while keeping the system-gaming as low as possible. And a diverse housing system that wasn't just about housing a tiny minority could respond to demand just like any other system. Demand for housing in downtown is so high people are doing crazy semi-illegal poo poo to get a unit there? Well build more housing where people need it then, or improve the housing/neighbourhoods elsewhere so that it's more desirable. Maybe the solution isn't adding more housing downtown but improving the metro so housing from a little farther out has easier access, maybe it's doing both. Compared though to what is considered absolutely normal levels of corruption, excess, and inefficiency in our current market system, the worst attempts at "arbitrage" in a socialized housing model barely compare. I'm not entirely married to an entirely government run system, I'm just not sure what a better alternative is. You leave everything up to the market and you get multi-million dollar mansions and homeless people, bubbles and busts, and the vast majority either in massive debt or renting in a slum. You try to control and guide the market and you end up with developers gaming the system to get rich of tax breaks and subsidies without providing the public good we're trying to pay them for. You try to directly build the housing publicly and unless it's a well-funded system that ends up capturing a good and DIVERSE share of the housing stock in the city it's very easy for that system to become a ghetto system through politically easy cuts and mismanagement. Baronjutter fucked around with this message at 22:06 on Mar 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 22:02
|
|
|
If you care at all about social housing, and it sounds like you do, arbitrage (scare quotes not needed) should rightly trouble you. It destroys the whole system.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 22:04
|
|
|
Lexicon posted:I can give you a personal example: years ago, before we met, my girlfriend rented a place near Granville Island in Vancouver, right on the seawall. It transpired that the landlord, who gave the impression she owned the place, was in fact a tenant under a socialized housing scheme (I'm not sure if it was run by the CoV or BC). She rented one room to my girlfriend (who left soon after as she turned out to be a psycho) at market rate and was in the process of renting out the other rooms while herself living at her own boyfriend's place. Arbitrage. I can't help but wonder why she wouldn't just live with her boyfriend in her socialized housing place. I mean with all social assistance there is always this bit of fraud going on where people declare themselves single but do actually have a bit of support behind them (more on this later). Her boyfriend probably would make it so she no longer qualifies for social assistance, but that aside, the only reason they'd not simply live in her apartment together is probably just a matter of location preference vs land value, as I was saying above. PT6A posted:Unless you ensure that people cannot, under any circumstances, move between apartments, there's going to be arbitrage opportunities. Look at sepermuta.com, the service that exists to help people do just this with government-provided housing in Cuba. It's technically illegal to accept or offer consideration for a housing swap, but it goes on every single day. The only thing that can realistically solve this problem (i.e. that some units are going to be more desirable than others) is to price them based on desirability, which leads us right back to market pricing where we started. Again, here too it's pretty much what I was talking about above: people trading off commute time for cash in hand. For both these cases, yes it's a bit of an issue, yes a few poor people are going to syphon some money away from people that need it much more than them. It's nothing you can ever eliminate completely, but certainly something you can control with some oversight and more dilligent checkups. It's a matter of cost-benefit analysis to determine how much you should dedicate on enforcement vs simply eating the occasional loss, the same way we deal with, say, transit fare evasion (and of course, like in that case, we sadly have contend with the actual cost/benefit figures vs "gently caress THOSE FILTHY ENTITLED POORS" attitudes which tend to err on the side of enforcement even when you end up recovering less from fraud then you spend on checking up on everyone.) None of this makes the program fundemetntally impractical and doomed to failure. I'd gladly suffer a small amount of unavoidable public fraud in return for knowing I will never have to be homeless no matter how bad things turn out for me or my loved ones, and considerably less homeless people on the street to boot (though that is almost always more a mental health problem than a housing problem). As for the spousal-ish-support "fraud", I really think that independently of all this, public support should be allocated in such a way that any household where one of the adults cannot work, society really can afford to pick up the slack even if, after considering the other adults' income, they are technically not around the poverty level.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 22:07
|
|
|
How well do the rent controls in montreal / Quebec work? I think I have the right province.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 22:08
|
|
|
Mr. Wynand posted:I can't help but wonder why she wouldn't just live with her boyfriend in her socialized housing place. I mean with all social assistance there is always this bit of fraud going on where people declare themselves single but do actually have a bit of support behind them (more on this later). Her boyfriend probably would make it so she no longer qualifies for social assistance, but that aside, the only reason they'd not simply live in her apartment together is probably just a matter of location preference vs land value, as I was saying above. Well the 4 * $700 in low-effort revenue (less $900 or so I'm guessing to rent the place) was probably a factor I'm guessing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 22:10
|
|
|
Lexicon posted:Well the 4 * $700 in low-effort revenue (less $900 or so I'm guessing to rent the place) was probably a factor I'm guessing. $900? In mainland Vancouver? That is decent? Son, please. And is 4*700 based on getting 4 independent boarders or what?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2014 22:18
|
|
|
Mr. Wynand posted:These things here are the bottom of the barrel of social housing from the dankest depths of one of the most repressive flavors of communism in history short of North Korea (Romania): The god tier for this concept is the Vienna model for public housing, really attractive buildings but at the same time offer lots of benefits such as affordable rent. It only works on finance side due to big federal subsidies and also how Vienna owns almost half of the city as muni property.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 00:10
|
|
|
etalian posted:
Yeah, like I was saying, I think that makes a lot of sense. Why shouldn't the city be the primary recipient of its increasing land value after all?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 01:03
|
|
|
Mr. Wynand posted:Yeah, like I was saying, I think that makes a lot of sense. Why shouldn't the city be the primary recipient of its increasing land value after all? It is anyway because cities collect property taxes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 02:42
|
|
|
Mr. Wynand posted:$900? In mainland Vancouver? That is decent? Son, please. Yes, yes, and yes. Well, it might've been $1000 for the place, but certainly not more. As I said, this was a subsidized (by whom, I'm not sure) residence near Granville island.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 02:50
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I'm not entirely married to an entirely government run system, I'm just not sure what a better alternative is. You leave everything up to the market and you get multi-million dollar mansions and homeless people, bubbles and busts, and the vast majority either in massive debt or renting in a slum. You try to control and guide the market and you end up with developers gaming the system to get rich of tax breaks and subsidies without providing the public good we're trying to pay them for. You try to directly build the housing publicly and unless it's a well-funded system that ends up capturing a good and DIVERSE share of the housing stock in the city it's very easy for that system to become a ghetto system through politically easy cuts and mismanagement. I missed this edit before, but you are definitely bang-on here. It's a difficult problem, and there are vast, often intractable issues on both sides of the government/market aisle.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 02:54
|
|
|
In the end it's moot. Even the worst of those problems are preferable to people freezing to death because they don't have a home.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 04:41
|
|
|
An Angry Bug posted:In the end it's moot. Even the worst of those problems are preferable to people freezing to death because they don't have a home. I assume there's plenty of cheap housing once you move out of the city. The problem is that you can any 2 of the following when it comes to housing: house lots of people in the city, at low cost, without creating slums. Also, you have the problem that people who already live in the city and own property have vastly different priorities from people who don't live in the city/don't own property. People who don't live in the city conveniently don't get to vote in the city, and people who don't own property probably don't vote in numbers as high as property owners.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 04:51
|
|
|
An Angry Bug posted:In the end it's moot. Even the worst of those problems are preferable to people freezing to death because they don't have a home. This is uncontroversial but also not really congruent with the thread topic. Homelessness also exists in cities/countries with a strong absence of a housing bubble.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 05:14
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Then you're pretty lucky. That's certainly not a sure thing, to say nothing of the possibility of simply being priced out (even in pro-tenant jurisdictions with some recourse for unreasonable rate hikes). yabut most provinces have protection for renters. Here in Alberta landlords can do whatever the gently caress they want for the most part.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 05:48
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Let's face it, government-provided housing has a really, really bad reputation pretty much everywhere. Whether it's the projects in the US, council flats in the UK, Khruschyovkas throughout the Eastern Bloc, or pretty much any other example I can think of, they're all pretty bad. It could be done right, in theory, but all available evidence and history suggests that it won't be. The only things wrong with council flats in the UK are that a) Thatcher handed them all over to their occupants to sell on the free market, creating the hugest arbitrage opportunity in history, and b) Thatcher put a freeze on building any more, that has yet to be lifted, creating a massive housing shortage that's driving UK property values through the roof.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 08:16
|
|
|
PT6A posted:It is anyway because cities collect property taxes. Well yes of course but if huge chunks of that are offset by the fact that you also have buy or lease hefty chunks of land for social housing, well you see the problem there.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 17:06
|
|
|
Bilirubin posted:yabut most provinces have protection for renters. Here in Alberta landlords can do whatever the gently caress they want for the most part. Well, yes and no. I lived in Quebec, and you're correct that tenants theoretically have more recourse against rent increases and such. Still, you have to (if I'm not mistaken) actually go to a hearing, and argue why the given increase is unreasonable given the circumstances, and you aren't guaranteed to win. You probably won't be pushed out with an instant $400/month increase, but over the course of years, if you aren't getting proper raises (or are on a fixed income), you can still be hosed. Lead out in cuffs posted:The only things wrong with council flats in the UK are that a) Thatcher handed them all over to their occupants to sell on the free market, creating the hugest arbitrage opportunity in history, and b) Thatcher put a freeze on building any more, that has yet to be lifted, creating a massive housing shortage that's driving UK property values through the roof. Thatcher's pretty useless, I agree. Do you have pictures of an average council flat before, and then again after the sell-off, to show the difference in quality, or is it simply "common knowledge"?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 17:07
|
|
|
Lexicon posted:Yes, yes, and yes. Well, it might've been $1000 for the place, but certainly not more. As I said, this was a subsidized (by whom, I'm not sure) residence near Granville island. You mean the $1000 is what she is actually paying for the place she is collecting $2800 for, or that's what her boyfriend is paying for where they actually live? My initial understanding was that you meant the latter. Look in any case, the same stuff I mentioned before applies: It's not an intractable problem. For a place with a market value of $2700/mo the government could probably do a better job doing some basic due diligence. It's also far too much space to have been allocated to a single person if 4 people are happy to pay $700/mo to live there, especially considering the social housing shortage in BC. Are you actually quite sure this was BC housing and not some weird private coop?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 17:26
|
|
|
$1000 (or less) was the price charged to her for the place. I think it was BC Housing, but I'll ask my girlfriend for better particulars tonight.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 17:35
|
|
|
She should report it to BC Housing then, since it's kinda sorta illegal.BC Housing posted:6) Assigning or Subletting That last is to tie into the Residential Tenancy Act: RTA posted:Assignment and subletting RTA posted:Offences and penalties This is a solved problem if people know and assert their legal rights.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 20:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 21:16 |
|
|
Lead out in cuffs posted:She should report it to BC Housing then, since it's kinda sorta illegal. This all happened fully five years ago, and there was a big legal event that my girlfriend had to testify at when the people running the thing finally got wind of it. I only brought it up as an actual example of the sort of arbitrage that me and others have been referring to.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 21:15
|
|