deathtokoalas
the only solution is a massive, manhatten project style government-led initiative, and the state needs to print the money to do it.
deathtokoalas
i don't care about the debt.
Saturday, November 11, 2017
Thursday, November 9, 2017
this is the vlog for nov 8, 2017, where i go to lasalle to serve my landlord, run into problems with my bicycle on the way there and don't actually get back until the next morning.
there are a couple of static entries. it is possible that i may have thought the device was running when it wasn't, but i find the situation curious, yet again. the first static entry - 1354 - was recorded walking between grand marais and cabana, through what was a school yard. i didn't know where i was or what i was walking into, and the commentary was actually somewhat comical. i am disappointed in not having that recorded, whatever the reason. the second static entry - 1356 - was recorded at the intersection of cabana & the 401, and i was trying to figure the area out. i had not yet been to this part of windsor.
again - i don't know what happened, but it is at least consistent with the idea that i did not turn the camera on before i started talking into it, turned the camera on when i stopped talking, pulled it up to look at it and turned it off. i might have done that if i wasn't paying attention.
the other explanation is that somebody deleted the files.
i also have a clear recollection of filming quite a few more segments than appear and these segments would certainly appear to have been deleted at some point. again: i don't believe they would be recoverable at this point, and that's disappointing to me.
Monday, November 6, 2017
Saturday, November 4, 2017
that was brutal.
everything else aside, the wide open window access at the fire escape made the place a non-starter. i need a safe space for my gear. that wasn't it.
and, my throat hurt just walking out of there.
at $725 + hydro, it's just a joke. $2000/month after taxes is the income of a young professional. that unit is more likely to appeal to a single mother on welfare. but, it would need to be brought up to code, first.
i've got lots of stuff planned for this week. hopefully, i find something. that simply wasn't acceptable.
everything else aside, the wide open window access at the fire escape made the place a non-starter. i need a safe space for my gear. that wasn't it.
and, my throat hurt just walking out of there.
at $725 + hydro, it's just a joke. $2000/month after taxes is the income of a young professional. that unit is more likely to appeal to a single mother on welfare. but, it would need to be brought up to code, first.
i've got lots of stuff planned for this week. hopefully, i find something. that simply wasn't acceptable.
Friday, November 3, 2017
so, what's my ideal unit?
1) i want it to be within walking distance from the tunnel. that's my singular concern regarding location. it can be in any direction, just not much further than i am now. so, that rules out anything east of walker road and anything west of huron church - and anything south of tecumseh. they're going to eventually build a bridge, but who knows when, and it's only valuable to me if i can bicycle over, at which point the city will open right up. if they don't allow bicycle access over the bridge, i'm going to need to continue using the tunnel, anyways, so it won't matter. we'll see if it even gets built. but, i'm going to start caring less in the next 5-10 years, too.
2) there should be a rule saying that you can't enter the building unless you're over 30.
3) no pets. and, the building should be pro-active in trapping strays.
4) no smoking inside or around the building. a designated smoking area should exist at the very distant end of the property.
5) no religious people allowed in the building. not even to visit.
6) i'd like to be on the third or fourth floor, facing away from the road.
7) 550+ square feet.
8) 650 all inclusive or 600 + hydro.
1) i want it to be within walking distance from the tunnel. that's my singular concern regarding location. it can be in any direction, just not much further than i am now. so, that rules out anything east of walker road and anything west of huron church - and anything south of tecumseh. they're going to eventually build a bridge, but who knows when, and it's only valuable to me if i can bicycle over, at which point the city will open right up. if they don't allow bicycle access over the bridge, i'm going to need to continue using the tunnel, anyways, so it won't matter. we'll see if it even gets built. but, i'm going to start caring less in the next 5-10 years, too.
2) there should be a rule saying that you can't enter the building unless you're over 30.
3) no pets. and, the building should be pro-active in trapping strays.
4) no smoking inside or around the building. a designated smoking area should exist at the very distant end of the property.
5) no religious people allowed in the building. not even to visit.
6) i'd like to be on the third or fourth floor, facing away from the road.
7) 550+ square feet.
8) 650 all inclusive or 600 + hydro.
i know that it's hard for extroverted people to understand, but social anxiety means the following:
1) i can't work.
2) i can't live with other people.
3) i don't have any friends,
4) i don't have any references.
5) i don't want to work, to live with others, to meet friends or to gain references. what i want is some place quiet where i can spend my time alone without other people bothering me.
but, it means i have an extra layer of complexity involved in this - and that i'm simply not well suited to get past it.
i'm going to have to find somebody willing to take a chance. not because i'm a risk - i'm not - but because i don't how to prove that i'm not.
and, the necessity of the appeal is that much more obvious.
i might get lucky tomorrow night. but, i have an irrational firm standing between me and what looks like an almost perfect unit. if that doesn't pan out, looking at the market, i'd guess it's probably going to take me upwards of six months to a year to find something.
i didn't create this problem.
1) i can't work.
2) i can't live with other people.
3) i don't have any friends,
4) i don't have any references.
5) i don't want to work, to live with others, to meet friends or to gain references. what i want is some place quiet where i can spend my time alone without other people bothering me.
but, it means i have an extra layer of complexity involved in this - and that i'm simply not well suited to get past it.
i'm going to have to find somebody willing to take a chance. not because i'm a risk - i'm not - but because i don't how to prove that i'm not.
and, the necessity of the appeal is that much more obvious.
i might get lucky tomorrow night. but, i have an irrational firm standing between me and what looks like an almost perfect unit. if that doesn't pan out, looking at the market, i'd guess it's probably going to take me upwards of six months to a year to find something.
i didn't create this problem.
Thursday, November 2, 2017
my honest analysis is that the adjudicator - perhaps in both cases - appears to have been driven not by a correct interpretation of the law, but by some "higher" concept of "morality" (which i claim is bullshit), in concluding that my landlord ought to have the right to move her sick mother in.
but, ignoring the question of faith, the court should not be adjudicating morality. and, i'm not driven by higher callings or magical beings. that's a lot of nonsense. rather, i will insist that the law be upheld.
i can be a little more specific.
the tenant alleges in the request for review that the application should have been dismissed pursuant to section 83 of the residential tenancies act, 2006.
this is incomplete - 83(3), precisely.
first, if the tenant did not raise the specific argument at the hearing, it should have and could have been and therefore is not properly considered on review (my emphasis).
this is kind of a half-truth, as the adjudicator has specific responsibilities under s. 83. you don't get to get away with an error in law because nobody pointed it out before hand; it's still an error in law and still justifies a review. it's true that i can't change my argument in review. but, the law remains the law, regardless.
but, the conditional clause here is false, because i did raise the specific argument at the hearing, which is what i put up for review in the first place. and, i pointed this out in the review body in two different ways. short of presenting audio evidence from the trial - which i will need to do on appeal, apparently - there isn't anything more convincing that i could have done to demonstrate this. but, a request for review is just that. a verbal or written rebuttal of this sort should, in truth, be enough to get back in front of a judge; we then determine whether i did or did not raise the argument at this point by going over the evidence that was presented and by listening to the audio of the tapes.
to claim that if i didn't raise the argument then the review is improper is an almost true statement, granted. but, that's the question we're trying to determine: it's what the review is meant to come to an answer on. i claim i did raise the argument. so, the reviewer is supposed to get us back in front of a judge to figure it out.
her formal argument is in the form of:
1. x ----> y
2. y
i don't dispute (1). but deducing (2) is a logical error because x has not been demonstrated, which is what the review is supposed to determine.
so, she's assuming the result of the review, rather than conducting it. and, that's misconduct on her behalf.
second, in paragraphs 21 to 23 the hearing member specifically turns her mind to the issue of section 83 and provides a detailed analysis.
see, now the fact that she dropped 83(3) previously is important, as this is a red herring - the discussion in 21 to 23 was about 83(1).
the hearing member has a broad discretion in issuing her order.
in fact, she does not. the case law is quite explicit that the clauses in 83(3) require hard stops. if there is any evidence that the action is being brought in retaliation, the adjudicator must dismiss - and she does not have discretion in balancing or weighing other interests against it. this is the importance of the evidence i've cited, which was ignored. and, it's the importance of this member being selective in the way she wrote her denial.
this board member obviously did not listen to the audio of the trial. she's essentially arguing from a point of ignorance, and making the assumption that the ruling was correct. then, she's producing very shoddy arguments to try and get to that predetermined conclusion.
i have no choice but to appeal.
the tenant alleges in the request for review that the application should have been dismissed pursuant to section 83 of the residential tenancies act, 2006.
this is incomplete - 83(3), precisely.
first, if the tenant did not raise the specific argument at the hearing, it should have and could have been and therefore is not properly considered on review (my emphasis).
this is kind of a half-truth, as the adjudicator has specific responsibilities under s. 83. you don't get to get away with an error in law because nobody pointed it out before hand; it's still an error in law and still justifies a review. it's true that i can't change my argument in review. but, the law remains the law, regardless.
but, the conditional clause here is false, because i did raise the specific argument at the hearing, which is what i put up for review in the first place. and, i pointed this out in the review body in two different ways. short of presenting audio evidence from the trial - which i will need to do on appeal, apparently - there isn't anything more convincing that i could have done to demonstrate this. but, a request for review is just that. a verbal or written rebuttal of this sort should, in truth, be enough to get back in front of a judge; we then determine whether i did or did not raise the argument at this point by going over the evidence that was presented and by listening to the audio of the tapes.
to claim that if i didn't raise the argument then the review is improper is an almost true statement, granted. but, that's the question we're trying to determine: it's what the review is meant to come to an answer on. i claim i did raise the argument. so, the reviewer is supposed to get us back in front of a judge to figure it out.
her formal argument is in the form of:
1. x ----> y
2. y
i don't dispute (1). but deducing (2) is a logical error because x has not been demonstrated, which is what the review is supposed to determine.
so, she's assuming the result of the review, rather than conducting it. and, that's misconduct on her behalf.
second, in paragraphs 21 to 23 the hearing member specifically turns her mind to the issue of section 83 and provides a detailed analysis.
see, now the fact that she dropped 83(3) previously is important, as this is a red herring - the discussion in 21 to 23 was about 83(1).
the hearing member has a broad discretion in issuing her order.
in fact, she does not. the case law is quite explicit that the clauses in 83(3) require hard stops. if there is any evidence that the action is being brought in retaliation, the adjudicator must dismiss - and she does not have discretion in balancing or weighing other interests against it. this is the importance of the evidence i've cited, which was ignored. and, it's the importance of this member being selective in the way she wrote her denial.
this board member obviously did not listen to the audio of the trial. she's essentially arguing from a point of ignorance, and making the assumption that the ruling was correct. then, she's producing very shoddy arguments to try and get to that predetermined conclusion.
i have no choice but to appeal.
yeah, i got the denial in.
it was from a different member of the board that wasn't at the hearing.
she actually doesn't even say that i didn't raise the matter - she says that if i didn't raise the matter, then i should have. but, i did raise the matter, and she has no way of knowing if i did or not, without checking the audio. a priori, if she is going to contemplate what might happen if i didn't raise the matter, she should also contemplate what might happen if i did. and, if i did, the adjudicator clearly ignored the point. so, this is a fallacious argument, at best.
then, she claims i have the burden of proof here (edit: on review), which i do, but my only argument would have been to submit the entire audio of the trial, which would be unreasonable. and, i actually cited evidence, which the reviewer clearly didn't consult. this is again a question of misconduct; i put in the review that the judge didn't look at the evidence, and it is dismissed without consulting the evidence. then, they claim i didn't provide a burden of proof. well, you didn't look at the evidence!
she then claims that the hearing member explored the s. 83 in detail over 21-23 - which is true, but it explored the detail of 83(1) and not 83(3), which is the argument presented. this is a red herring.
the denial essentially did not address my request, and did exactly the same thing that i claimed was the problem in the first place: i claimed that the adjudicator didn't address the evidence, and the review then also doesn't address the evidence.
i'm going to have to serve the appeal on monday or tuesday.
it was from a different member of the board that wasn't at the hearing.
she actually doesn't even say that i didn't raise the matter - she says that if i didn't raise the matter, then i should have. but, i did raise the matter, and she has no way of knowing if i did or not, without checking the audio. a priori, if she is going to contemplate what might happen if i didn't raise the matter, she should also contemplate what might happen if i did. and, if i did, the adjudicator clearly ignored the point. so, this is a fallacious argument, at best.
then, she claims i have the burden of proof here (edit: on review), which i do, but my only argument would have been to submit the entire audio of the trial, which would be unreasonable. and, i actually cited evidence, which the reviewer clearly didn't consult. this is again a question of misconduct; i put in the review that the judge didn't look at the evidence, and it is dismissed without consulting the evidence. then, they claim i didn't provide a burden of proof. well, you didn't look at the evidence!
she then claims that the hearing member explored the s. 83 in detail over 21-23 - which is true, but it explored the detail of 83(1) and not 83(3), which is the argument presented. this is a red herring.
the denial essentially did not address my request, and did exactly the same thing that i claimed was the problem in the first place: i claimed that the adjudicator didn't address the evidence, and the review then also doesn't address the evidence.
i'm going to have to serve the appeal on monday or tuesday.
Wednesday, November 1, 2017
it's kind of a real point when you're talking about a room, too, right.
i mean, i can't live in a room. i have thousands of dollars worth of gear. i can't leave it in the living room. i need a door to lock it behind. if it comes to it, i'll have to put it in storage, and i'd be more likely to just live in a shelter until i can find an actual apartment.
but, that's just the point: living in a room necessitates that you waste whatever extra money you have, because you can't spend it on anything valuable because you live in a room.
sure: an extra $400/month could be spent on gear. but, then i'd need an apartment to store it. i can't buy expensive gear and leave it in the room, that's not safe.
i guess if you're obese, you could eat more. i'm not going to do that.
on top of that, if you're stuck in a room, you're likely to feel the urge to get drunk, because you're bored and depressed, and perhaps stressed out from the forced interactions with the other tenants.
so, i can't even make sense of what the intent even is. i'm not asking for special treatment, here. this is just a stupid way to manage something. it's really a very potent recipe for encouraging alcoholism, as far as i can see.
with low income tenants, you should be trying to taking away as much money from them as you can.
i'm just trying to, like...
35% of $1200 is $420, which would be enough for a room. and, i'd then end up with about $400 unbudgeted, monthly. this is just standard disability. i'm not getting extra cash.
what do they expect me to spend this on? beer? marijuana?
i'm disabled. what else am i going to spend it on?
if i could find a place that cheap that is safe, i'd take it. sure. but, i can't imagine what i'd even do with the extra money. a good proportion of it would no doubt be spent on beer.
i'd rather have a nice apartment than extra beer money.
it's still not enough for a minimum monthly payment on my loan, fwiw.
35% of $1200 is $420, which would be enough for a room. and, i'd then end up with about $400 unbudgeted, monthly. this is just standard disability. i'm not getting extra cash.
what do they expect me to spend this on? beer? marijuana?
i'm disabled. what else am i going to spend it on?
if i could find a place that cheap that is safe, i'd take it. sure. but, i can't imagine what i'd even do with the extra money. a good proportion of it would no doubt be spent on beer.
i'd rather have a nice apartment than extra beer money.
it's still not enough for a minimum monthly payment on my loan, fwiw.
could i take a temporary apartment in a part of town i don't like, and then just leave everything packed and bail the moment something better comes up?
i might have to, maybe.
i'm just imagining what life would be like if i moved to the sandwich area, for example. there's literally nothing anywhere for miles that i'd go to. i went to that metal bar there once and swore i'd never go back. so, i'd spend all my time in my room by myself.
if i were to get out to go to the tunnel, i'd have to plan around an hour or an hour and a half walk to the tunnel. would i take the bus? well, could i walk faster? so, if the show starts at 20:00, i'd want to catch a 19:00 bus and leave the house at 17:30.
that doesn't look as bad as i thought.
maybe i should contemplate units that are a little further, after all.
but, it's such stupidity from my perspective, because i'm just going to end up transiting into town all of the time, anyways. i'd rather pay the extra funds, if they'd just let me.
i might have to, maybe.
i'm just imagining what life would be like if i moved to the sandwich area, for example. there's literally nothing anywhere for miles that i'd go to. i went to that metal bar there once and swore i'd never go back. so, i'd spend all my time in my room by myself.
if i were to get out to go to the tunnel, i'd have to plan around an hour or an hour and a half walk to the tunnel. would i take the bus? well, could i walk faster? so, if the show starts at 20:00, i'd want to catch a 19:00 bus and leave the house at 17:30.
that doesn't look as bad as i thought.
maybe i should contemplate units that are a little further, after all.
but, it's such stupidity from my perspective, because i'm just going to end up transiting into town all of the time, anyways. i'd rather pay the extra funds, if they'd just let me.
i need to reiterate the point.
i've never missed a month of rent. never been late. was usually early.
and, i have $1500 in the bank to put down on first and last.
the problem is that the only vacancies in my price range are run by a management company that is illegally pushing down a rent to income ratio, and is refusing to rent to people with student loan defaults.
i could very well walk out of here via the process of putting my items in storage, and ending up in a hostel. and, odsp might even pay for it.
if i were to leave windsor, where would i go?
the only place that makes any sense right now is toronto. but, i'd have to hitch-hike down there and search for something out of a tim horton's. and, it's only going to happen when i'm done the legal fights here.
i could end up in the hostel for months because i have to stay here to sue these people.
it's an absurd situation. i have the means to pay, and there are vacant units in my price range, but i'm not allowed to apply for any of them.
i need to get caught up on the discography, because it's becoming clear that my main focus for the foreseeable future is going to be fighting multiple legal battles, simultaneously.
this is life. all i want to do is play guitar. but there's always some fucking bullshit.
if i was going to be a lawyer, and i was never going to be a lawyer, then this is what i'd want to do - go after slumlords and try and take down the bourgeoisie. i wouldn't mind sitting on odsp and working pro bono. i gave up because i realized the system is rigged - that these legal principles are just imaginary things, really.
i could very well end up fighting an appeal to stay here as i go after the local management company on human rights charges to try and find somewhere to move to. i might need to fight legal battles on both fronts. and, then i'm doing what i didn't want to do - i'm working for no purpose, spending eight-ten hours a day fighting to keep the gear safe, but not being able to use it. that's as pointless as just getting a fucking job, right?
but, i may very well literally have no other choice.
if i'm lucky, the company will listen to me, or at least give me somewhere nice to stay. that will save everybody a lot of time, and let me get back to doing something i care about within a couple of weeks.
if not, this could be a really long slog.
this is life. all i want to do is play guitar. but there's always some fucking bullshit.
if i was going to be a lawyer, and i was never going to be a lawyer, then this is what i'd want to do - go after slumlords and try and take down the bourgeoisie. i wouldn't mind sitting on odsp and working pro bono. i gave up because i realized the system is rigged - that these legal principles are just imaginary things, really.
i could very well end up fighting an appeal to stay here as i go after the local management company on human rights charges to try and find somewhere to move to. i might need to fight legal battles on both fronts. and, then i'm doing what i didn't want to do - i'm working for no purpose, spending eight-ten hours a day fighting to keep the gear safe, but not being able to use it. that's as pointless as just getting a fucking job, right?
but, i may very well literally have no other choice.
if i'm lucky, the company will listen to me, or at least give me somewhere nice to stay. that will save everybody a lot of time, and let me get back to doing something i care about within a couple of weeks.
if not, this could be a really long slog.
gah.
i was focused, then scattered after lunch.
nothing. some expensive properties that tell me they're not renting when i call. is it the google voice?
"head office posts those, they don't have anything to do with us."
ugh.
well, they're all overpriced, anyways. i'd need some scheme.
inri055 is done. let me get back to writing it up. and maybe i can finally ship tomorrow.
i was focused, then scattered after lunch.
nothing. some expensive properties that tell me they're not renting when i call. is it the google voice?
"head office posts those, they don't have anything to do with us."
ugh.
well, they're all overpriced, anyways. i'd need some scheme.
inri055 is done. let me get back to writing it up. and maybe i can finally ship tomorrow.
it turns out that marda is not just preventing access to showings based on credit history, which is barely legal, but is also restricting access to showings based on income - which is completely illegal.
i'd rather get a unit than take them to the human rights tribunal, but what they're doing is atrocious and i'd take glee in shutting them down.
what i've done to start is lie on the application. you need to make $2000/month to get access to a $725/month apartment, which is ridiculous. i was making about $1800 after taxes when i worked for microsoft. you couldn't get into this apartment if you were the manager at mcdonalds.
but, it's an old, falling apart building. it should be full of pensioners and disabled people. right now, it appears to have a high vacancy - because this company is making it impossible to get in.
how do you calculate that you need $2000 for a $725/month apartment?
my expenses would be as follows:
725 (rent)
85 (medication)
0 (they advertise free wifi)
60 (hydro)
200 (groceries)
20 (laundry)
-----
1090
but, i get a $45 hydro rebate - unless it's electric heating, in which case i get even more.
so, i'm at $1045 in costs, maybe less - leaving me $150 spending money a month. that's a lot. what do i need $2000 for?
- a/c (no thanks)
- cable (no thanks)
- phone (no thanks)
- car (no thanks)
you get the point.
but, it's not up to some bourgeois entity to manage my finances for me. i don't want a fucking car; that's why i live downtown, so i can walk. and, fuck you for getting in my face about it.
the only way i could get to see the unit was to lie. so, i lied. and, i'll have to be persuasive when i get there in demonstrating that i'll be just fine after credits.
ugh.
i'd rather get a unit than take them to the human rights tribunal, but what they're doing is atrocious and i'd take glee in shutting them down.
what i've done to start is lie on the application. you need to make $2000/month to get access to a $725/month apartment, which is ridiculous. i was making about $1800 after taxes when i worked for microsoft. you couldn't get into this apartment if you were the manager at mcdonalds.
but, it's an old, falling apart building. it should be full of pensioners and disabled people. right now, it appears to have a high vacancy - because this company is making it impossible to get in.
how do you calculate that you need $2000 for a $725/month apartment?
my expenses would be as follows:
725 (rent)
85 (medication)
0 (they advertise free wifi)
60 (hydro)
200 (groceries)
20 (laundry)
-----
1090
but, i get a $45 hydro rebate - unless it's electric heating, in which case i get even more.
so, i'm at $1045 in costs, maybe less - leaving me $150 spending money a month. that's a lot. what do i need $2000 for?
- a/c (no thanks)
- cable (no thanks)
- phone (no thanks)
- car (no thanks)
you get the point.
but, it's not up to some bourgeois entity to manage my finances for me. i don't want a fucking car; that's why i live downtown, so i can walk. and, fuck you for getting in my face about it.
the only way i could get to see the unit was to lie. so, i lied. and, i'll have to be persuasive when i get there in demonstrating that i'll be just fine after credits.
ugh.
fucking rentier capitalists with their property as theft. they ruin everything. never fails.
the single most important factor for me is that i need to be within a half hour walk from the tunnel.
so, that rules out the whole sandwich area - which is a pretty boring part of town, anyways.
i'm a downtown person. i want concrete and streetlights. i want 24 hour convenience stores. and, i don't want wild animals.
i also don't want to live on campus, or to close it. i don't get along with the younger generation very well. and, they don't recognize me as older than them. if i end up moving close to campus, i'm going to end up telling a bunch of kids to leave me alone.
the ideal zone is really a four or five block radius away from where i am. i'd rather move closer to town than away from it. and, stuff is coming up here. i just have to be patient.
it seems like hallowe'en is a holiday in the real estate business. nothing up today. but, i'm going to make a call around noon.
i'm going to be working on inri055 today, i think. i'm just waiting for information, right now.
i left a mix of this aside in may, 2015 but i don't quite remember why. my notes aren't helping. i know i wanted to redo the ambient mix - which wasn't very ambient - but that doesn't really explain why i have this transitional thing that i put aside. i kind of remember thinking that i just liked the combination as it was.
i also wanted a guitar mix.
so, that's three combinations. and, it should get the disc close to fill.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)