Question #174 Price/Urine ratio
Two close friends of mine are often arguing about housing and homeless.
One friend, lets call him "Ryan", is often complaining that the plants all along his street are used for toilets by SF's transient population.
My other friend, we'll call him "Phil", is oft-heard dismissing these complaints with the claim that the only reason "Ryan" lives where he lives is because the rent is low and the only reason the rent is low is because of the "golden glow" on all plants/buildings/parked cars in the area.
This brings us to today's question:
What is the appropriate ratio of public toiletry to lowered housing costs?
10 comments:
As one who leans toward paying more for cleaner surrounds, I say 5/1 meaning 50% more pissing in the street for a 10% reduction in rental prices.
If my rent was free I would wear galoshes and wade through an inch of urine every day.
There is very little piss in my neighborhood, even doubled or tripled it wouldn't be noticeable so I say I would have 50 percent more piss if it saved me even 5 percent.
1 public terlet per every 25 parking spaces.
I used to live in an area similar to a 'Ryan' and must say that I now pay 23% more for about 85% less piss and I think that is a freaking bargain.
Those who say that the extra money is worth the piss and bodily fluids have never had the cash to live in the upper rent district like Joe and myself.
I am in favor of one flamethrower per 10 bums, applied liberally.
My neighborhood is blessed with low urine and reasonable rent... The only homeless remaining here are the ones scrappy enough to survive the drivers in my neighborhood. You've gotta respect that.
There's practically zero piss in my neighborhood (if you don't count the standard amount of dog piss). Rent is pretty reasonable, though I know people who pay less to live in pissier places. The piss-factor is definitely part of the reason I'm willing to pay a little more.
I don't think I'd pay more on top of what I already do to ensure absolutely zero piss. But I'd trade 10% more piss for an equivalent drop in rent. So I guess the ration is 1/1, but only until you get to, say, 25% or so. At that point the rent-break requirement would start multiplying exponentially. I'd draw the line completely at about 50% piss-increase.
i wonder if this was related to the subprime collapse.
i cant tell if a human is regularly peeing in the entrance to my apartment building or an animal, but there is a yellow piss puddle on average once a week. If i simply pretend all pee is dog pee i wouldnt increase my rent by any amount.
I saw a guy take a shit on Thanksgiving Day right by my apartment. It was a first for me. Can I deduct that from my rent? How much?
pee here
Post a Comment