Jesus. Good on you for not having any of that bullshit.

Couple of screws on either side for the sliding problem. Bedazzling to make it fun.

Good point and well said. The law in CA only applies to buildings with at least 15 units, it’s opt-in so landlords will only have to pay for tenants who opt for it, and there are provisions for canceling the service for tenants who don’t pay (then restrictions on their ability to opt-in again). That should help mitigate the impact to mom and pop shops.

I somewhat disagree, because landlords have a say by their sheer number and capital. If credit agencies or reporting services want to gouge landlords, that shouldn’t be the tenant’s problem and landlords should come together to negotiate lower prices. I much prefer the built-in tenant protection here of a $10 per month cap.

CA landlords can charge their monthly cost or $10, whichever is less.

Listen for the tiny screams.

Instrike birdmance

Bad title, if the article is accurate. What’s happening is they are trying to repeal an exemption made in 2020 to existing anti-mask laws that were instituted to curtail secret societies and the KKK.

It does not appear that masking for health reasons was prosecuted before the exemption was made for covid. Would it be prosecuted now though is the question.

Generally? Yes. Specifically? No.