Recent comments in /f/Connecticut

SaddenedBKSticks t1_j6bc0yl wrote

Our electric heating(with other electric appliances/water heater) during January(with one room of 2 baseboards on at low temp, but usually running a lot) is about $620ish. January is usually the worst month, but this January is a bit mild. Hoping it reflects in the bill to be near the usual amout, otherwise we'd be probably beating you. December is usually around $350-400ish(before these rate increases). We should be getting our January bill soon, a bit scared lol.

That's pretty high for a 2 bedroom apartment though(the $789), something might be up with your usage or a leak developed somewhere, or your habits changed. It's awful how out of control these rates have gotten, especially for those of us with electric heating. A lot of people with electric heating are going to struggle a bit while this is going on.

5

speel t1_j6b8x1f wrote

I almost had a job there but they were unwilling to pay the salary I was looking for. Nice people other wise from my experience.

3

JustADudeBeingADood t1_j6b4wcv wrote

The landlord has zero incentive in locking your girlfriend into a specific rate/lease if they are selling now. Because if they do that, now they have to find a buyer who wants the property AND is okay with the current lease. This alienates a buyer who maybe wanted to live there themself or want different lease terms.

I am guessing the landlord said "yeah I could...but no" in a nice way but didnt make the rejection clear to your girlfriend.

3

Teereese t1_j6b3bo1 wrote

The landlord is wrong. If she enters into a yearly lease, the new owner would have to honor the contract.

However, the landlord would be crazy to start a new lease while the property is listed for sale.

8

bramletabercrombe t1_j6b2hse wrote

Reply to comment by WhittlingDan in This is a cult, right? by CassCat

Facebook is it's own nation. In the information age it's the most powerful nation on earth. Listen to Zuckerberg's recent speeches. He sounds like a despot because he knows he owns all he politicians that have any ability to stop him.

5

Darrone t1_j6b2gkl wrote

How would ranked choice would ever prevent someone from winning if they would have received a majority of votes in a two party race? The only way they'd lose in ranked choice is if their opponent received more votes on the last cut than they did, and if so, would have beaten them anyway head to head. Sure, Ds and Rs are still winning because they are part of a massive political machine that will takes decades to dismantle if it even can be. But winning larger vote shares increases the power of third party candidates and parties even if they don't win an election. For example, many states require a % for a party to be listed on ballots, and that is much easier to achieve with ranked choice than with single vote.

1