https://castelblanco.com/renters-rights-air-conditioning-california/

Seems like California doesn’t require AC for habitability, but mandates landlord repair and maintenance if the service was provided when the lease was signed and the tenant moved in. Sounds like since you have AC, your landlord is required to provide it to at least one of the tenants unless it was newly installed.

It is a lawyer summary instead of the code, but feel free to dig into the California legal code if you want to argue back.

You wanted ideas of how it could happen and I gave the possible explanation. If you want to argue in front of the judge that an open window isn’t enough of a waste to warrant eviction, go on ahead.

No. There may be other ways. They can look up the law and there might be an out for opening a window. I don’t know. However, based on the limited information given to me, this is likely the excuse given by the landlord to kick out OP.

You’re right, OP likely isn’t responsible for AC. That’s why the owner controls the AC, likely because they are legally required to provide AC. That’s what I said originally.

However, it is usually written into the law that tenants can’t waste landlord provided utilities, and this sounds like the argument that the landlord is making to the town. It sounds like this is just an excuse for the landlord to kick OP out, but this isn’t an argument that I’m making is good.

You keep mixing me up with the landlord.

Edit: It turns out I am somewhat wrong. CA law requires that, if AC is provided, it must be restored by the landlord in case the AC breaks at the landlord’s cost alone. Tenants are legally able to withhold rent due to a broken AC.

Therefore, there is no legal way for OP as a tenant to take over AC costs.

I haven’t read the agreement, in part because OP didn’t provide it. I’m just providing a probable means in which the landlord could be using in order to push OP out on the street.

A requirement to provide a means of air conditioning is common in the warmer parts of the USA; it is a reason why the summer increased death toll stays so low despite lethal summer temperatures. It also depends on how the law is written; someone else would need to read the law to see if opening a window is considered acceptable or not.

And for everyone making trying to make a moral argument to me about this, I’m not making a moral argument. I’m trying to explain the possible legal mechanism that is occurring where the landlord is trying to push out OP as a way for OP to look at ways to defend themselves.

Your lease may not specifically say that you have to keep windows closed, but it is likely that there is a requirement for the landlord to provide air conditioning. Requirements like this usually have a stipulation that the renter not waste the provided utility. That’s what your landlord is likely dinging you with, since the landlord is providing AC.

The only way to deal with it is that you’d have to sign off on taking ownership of the air conditioning. However, since it sounds like you have roommates given your fear of catching COVID at home, that doesn’t seem likely.

It also seems likely that this is going to follow you to whatever rental living arraignment you have. Unless you are contractually taking full ownership of providing air conditioning to a liveable temperature, you’re going to run into someone telling to keep the windows closed.

What other animal eats hot food? Has it ever been something to select for?

Don’t Dead

Open Inside

Actually, it depends on the state/city. There is no federal sales tax; all sales taxes are determined at the state and municipal level and are only charged at the final point of sale. Some states or cities allow for limited versions of what you’re talking about; Washington State rebates sales taxes for Oregon residents.

However, why isn’t this typical across all states? It turns out that taxes tourists is generally more popular than taxing residents. This is especially true if the tax is enacted by referendum. For instance, a lot of stadiums are publicly funded via hotel room and rental car taxes.

In the context of “what did the military action physically do?” it is important to recognize the difference between direct action and additional effects caused by the reaction from the affected government.

The attack on Venezuela was orders of magnitude less than the attack/war with Iran. Yet, Venezuela gave up financial control of its oil supply while Iran might be getting unprecedented control over a strategic waterway. If a government is going to resist American imperialism, it needs both the means and the will to resist. Iran has it, Venezuela didn’t have it, and early indications seem like Cuba is more like Venezuela than Iran.

Control of the gold and oil wealth was given by the remaining government and its release wasn’t enough to topple the Venezuelan government.

I don’t want the USA to invade Cuba, but I don’t think that Cuba could credibly resist an occupation.

Cuba is isolated from any ally who could offer military supplies, including drones. It is also fairly close to the US mainland, allowing for easy supply from the US.

What I expect would happen is that the US would force some minor restoration of capital to pre-revolution owners and install a government filled with a mix of government collaborators and Cuban-Americans with a mandate to transform the Cuban economy.

Unless the new government is wildly incompetent and corrupt, I expect that there would be enough stateside support to ensure that the new government is successful for the first few years. Keeping enough collaborators, which is something likely to happen with Trump, would likely prevent the whole government from engaging in an organized resistance. The likely dropping off the embargo will also allow an increase in economic conditions on the island, muting resistance of the rest of the citizenry.

Yeah. The USA engaged in one raid to take the current head of state but left the rest of the country mostly intact.

I’ve heard some companies still post to monster.com

Yeah. I feel like Japan has the best solution, which is to use specialty incineration plants with massive outlet filters to scrub the exhaust of toxic chemicals.

The same place as stable funding for journalism.

Yeah. He is either incredibly delusional about what is going on or his administration is really great at keeping him in the dark.

A lot of conspiracy discussion websites were manipulated in a way to get Donald Trump elected president.

For physical labor no one wants to do, you can finesse your response to be less “not my job” and more “I have other tasks I need to do now as part of my job”. It may sound similar, but one is making it so that you are determining what is and isn’t your responsibility and the other is pushing that decision on someone else.

Someone else hired you to push people around. You can’t override your boss, so you need to focus on the work they give you and take the breaks you can on their time table. A nurse may have deserved status, but unless the chain of command runs through them, you got to follow the chain.

Still applies more to Trump than Biden or Harris, given Trump’s open corruption feeding into crony capitalism.

Like I’ve said before, it feels like the term is being changed because the argument behind how I’m using it is hard to refuse, so the choice is to try to redefine the word rather than discuss the argument.