The police literally have 'courtesy cards' they hand out to friends and family to avoid getting them ticketed - that's a practice that absolutely needs to stop.
Yeah I'll agree that on its own it's not a good measure because of situations like this.
Because percent change uses the previous value in the denominator, which here was negative. (2.33- -0.5)/(-0.5) = about -5.66, or -566%. What number do you think would make more sense?
According to that website it looks like candidates still have a few weeks to get onto the ballot; I'd be surprised if by then you still don't have a left-leaning candidate.
I had a few false starts before, but MS force-updating me to the objectively worse and user-hostile Windows 8 triggered my latest (and successful) switch.
If I were to play devil's advocate, it would be that capped rent increases is to prevent predatory landlords from increasing rent more than their costs, but that if their costs go up more then they have a way to cover that without losing the property / going bankrupt.
That provision is maybe more acceptable when you're talking about families renting out their basement suite, but I have zero sympathy for investors who took a risk and lost. And even in the case of non-investor landlords, I'm skeptical that it's appropriate to make the tenant shoulder all the increased costs.
Because they aren't overriding it - the legislation allows for these rent increases in certain circumstances. Not agreeing with the law or the decision, but the arbitrator isn't making up some new power.
I switched jobs earlier this year for a 47℅ 'raise' - I'm absolutely loving my new role.
My understanding is that a potential sale of my previous employer fell through because I was basically the brains that developed / maintained the only innovative thing they had done in the past 15 years, and given their lack of investment in anything else there was nothing else of value for the buyer.
@festus
@lemmy.ca