Urban vs Suburban - 2 styles enter, one style leaves!

[lineman]

Originally Posted by freeweed

I'm not shooting the messenger, the fact is that prostitution is completely illegal in Canada - even if the criminal code weasels its way around this by saying that prostitution ITSELF is not illegal, just everything necessary to engage in it.

It's like saying "sure, alcohol isn't illegal, it's just illegal to manufacture, sell, or distribute it in any way". Oh wait, that's precisely what many Prohibition laws did.

It's not a misnomer at all. There is no legal way to engage in prostitution in Canada. If there were, all the illegal ways people do it wouldn't exist. That is kinda self-evident.

Terrible analogy. The sale of alcohol was prohibited, where the sale of sex is not.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by lineman

Terrible analogy. The sale of alcohol was prohibited, where the sale of sex is not.

For all practical purposes, it is. Again, demonstrate to me where I can exchange money for sex in Canada legally. And in some jurisdictions, the sale of alcohol was not prohibited, just any surrounding activities - making the sale of impossible even if it's "legal".

Spirit of the law vs letter of the law. You're getting caught up in pedantics.

[lineman]

Because you have the inability to find out for yourself, a quick search led me to this.

Originally Posted by wikipedia

On the other hand, working as an independent sex worker and private communication for such purposes (telephone, internet, e-mail, etc.) is legal.

[freeweed]

So you honestly and truly believe that prostitutes, and those that pay for their services, are entirely in the clear. That this is completely above water and totally legal. That I can, tomorrow, start up a career in this and neither myself nor my clientele will ever be in trouble with the law. So long as we only use the phone and internet to communicate?

Something you may not realize, but "escort services", while thinly-veiled prostitution, are still illegal if money changes hands for sex. People get busted for this all the time.

I suppose it never occurs to all of those girls walking the street to get a cellphone, if that's all it takes to make it legal.

[lineman]

I wouldn't know nor do I care to make up scenarios for the sake of arguing this any further. Good day.

[suburbia]

Cross-posting from the condo thread ...

Looks like insurance rates for condos are skyrocketing. Too many claims blamed on "other condo owners" apparently.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...ting-1.2661374

Premiums for insurance have increased by 25 to 35 per cent and deductibles have also gone from $5,000 to $25,000
<>
"It's amazing how often I read in [board meeting minutes] about another irresponsible condo owner who hasn't bothered to check on their hoses or hasn't bothered to notice that they have left the bathtub running," she said.
<>
The Co-operators — Alberta's third largest property insurer — is in the process of transitioning out of the commercial condo insurance business in most of the country.
<>
While the company is getting out of insuring actual condo buildings, Sharman says it will continue to insure individual condo units.

Now the above being said, I'm wondering if things like issues with glass, flooding of condos in the West end (even before last year's flooring), etc. are playing into this?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by suburbia

Cross-posting from the condo thread ...
....

Why, because you didn't get any bites there?

[Ramsayfarian]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Why, because you didn't get any bites there?

He hasn't figured out yet that 80% of the users here have blocked his posts.

[speedog]

Really, it's too bad that so many have him blocked because the post he just created is well worth discussing because it will have a major impact of those that own condominiums. To believe otherwise if folly IMHO.

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by speedog

Really, it's too bad that so many have him blocked because the post he just created is well worth discussing because it will have a major impact of those that own condominiums. To believe otherwise if folly IMHO.

Personally I don't think it's that big of a deal. Sure some companies may not be able to make the numbers work for condo insurance, but the vast majority of big insurance providers will make it work.

The numbers in the article, 25-30% price increases, are peanuts. Home owners have seen 200% increases in some insurance coverages since the flood, including water damage:

http://metronews.ca/news/calgary/910...-suit-in-2014/

Increasing a deductible from 5k to 25k will only make people shop around for other insurance coverage.

I think I understand now why people ignore him. He is a hit and run poster, if you challenge him, he goes silent until the next article comes around that paints urban living in a bad light while ignoring any articles posted since that challenge suburban living. He can sure dish it out but he can't take it. The thing is, no one cares enough to go around posting all the negative articles about suburban living, there are simply too many.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by speedog

Really, it's too bad that so many have him blocked because the post he just created is well worth discussing because it will have a major impact of those that own condominiums.

Absolutely.

Originally Posted by geotag277

Personally I don't think it's that big of a deal. Sure some companies may not be able to make the numbers work for condo insurance, but the vast majority of big insurance providers will make it work.

The numbers in the article, 25-30% price increases, are peanuts. Home owners have seen 200% increases in some insurance coverages since the flood, including water damage

"in some insurance coverage" is the operative statement, and in large part it applies to those areas that are in the flood zone. My insurance hasn't changed, as an example.

Insurance rate increases of 25%-30% across the board are very significant for condos, but irrespective of the specifics of the increase, peeling the onion reveals the major issue. Someone in another unit does something like leaves a faucet on, and because you co-locate in the same building, you get hit. This is an inherent risk with condos, and you see similar challenges when it comes to fires and the like. Certainly, a major SFH fire can spread also, but when it happens in a condo, it is basically a guarantee.

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by suburbia

"in some insurance coverage" is the operative statement, and in large part it applies to those areas that are in the flood zone. My insurance hasn't changed, as an example.

Insurance rate increases of 25%-30% across the board are very significant for condos, but irrespective of the specifics of the increase, peeling the onion reveals the major issue. Someone in another unit does something like leaves a faucet on, and because you co-locate in the same building, you get hit. This is an inherent risk with condos, and you see similar challenges when it comes to fires and the like. Certainly, a major SFH fire can spread also, but when it happens in a condo, it is basically a guarantee.

Again, you aren't even reading your own links. 25-30% is not across the board, it is a figure quoted by an independent consultant who works with condo boards. It is likely only affecting buildings impacted by the flood, and again, the 30% is much lower number than 200% incurred by home owners.

Every condo building is different, some have majority renters, some have majority owners, some were impacted by the flood, some weren't. Incident rates on internal damage and absent minded owners will vary building to building.

You aren't "peeling the onion" on anything, condo owners need to respect they live in the same building as other people. That is a fundamental difference to owning between condo ownership and owning single detached homes. Just like no one is "peeling the onion" by pointing out the epidemic of break ins in South Calgary suburban neighbourhoods is a vulnerability when entrance to your house is exposed and easily accessible from street level. That's just a risk that home owners accept when living in such a dwelling.

[geotag277]

Again, no one bothers to post the myriad of articles regarding suburban insurance issues, because, like every other problem with suburban living, there are simply too many to count:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/floo...d-it-1.1869651

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...ceos-1.1855255

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/floo...d-it-1.1869651

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...rage-1.1704892

http://www.calgarysun.com/2013/11/18...-prone-alberta

http://www.ctvnews.ca/business/cauti...cies-1.1335967

To put it in an urban versus suburban context, insuring these kinds of damages is easier for an insurance company to economically justify in high density living - they can get more money from each individual member to cover more of the damage. Urban wins again. Shesh, suburban living has a terrible batting average so far.

Like clockwork, suburbia will now enter hibernation mode until the next singular article surfaces that points out a disadvantage with urban living, I'm sure along the way including his own special brand of spin such as "gang rape", "robbery", "across the board", and all the other turns of phrase he injects into articles to increase their drama and disconnect them from reality.

[speedog]

geotag277 - the recent break-in spree in south Calgary was more a case of dumb home owners than anything else. People just leaving their places unlocked and the last time I checked, stupidity doesn't know what boundaries are. I suppose one could argue that an owner of a unit in a multi-unit building is at less risk if they leave their unit unlocked but at the same time a leaking dishwasher supply hose or a frozen pipe in a multi-unit building has a much greater potential for messing up multiple owner's lives than if the same thing happened in a single family home.

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by speedog

geotag277 - the recent break-in spree in south Calgary was more a case of dumb home owners than anything else. People just leaving their places unlocked and the last time I checked, stupidity doesn't know what boundaries are. I suppose one could argue that an owner of a unit in a multi-unit building is at less risk if they leave their unit unlocked but at the same time a leaking dushwashet supply hose or a frozen pipe in a multi-unit building has a much greater potential for messing up multiple owner's lives than if the same thing happened in a single family home.

So many onions are peeling I am in tears.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by geotag277

Again, no one bothers to post the myriad of articles regarding suburban insurance issues, because, like every other problem with suburban living, there are simply too many to count:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/floo...d-it-1.1869651

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...ceos-1.1855255

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/floo...d-it-1.1869651

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...rage-1.1704892

http://www.calgarysun.com/2013/11/18...-prone-alberta

http://www.ctvnews.ca/business/cauti...cies-1.1335967

To put it in an urban versus suburban context, insuring these kinds of damages is easier for an insurance company to economically justify in high density living - they can get more money from each individual member to cover more of the damage. Urban wins again. Shesh, suburban living has a terrible batting average so far.

Like clockwork, suburbia will now enter hibernation mode until the next singular article surfaces that points out a disadvantage with urban living, I'm sure along the way including his own special brand of spin such as "gang rape", "robbery", "across the board", and all the other turns of phrase he injects into articles to increase their drama and disconnect them from reality.

These articles are largely about specific types of flood insurance that isn't available irrespective of where you live of type of residence it is. It is rather old news, though I do agree there are additional major challenges in the areas immediately beside our rivers and that are particularly low lying.

Areas with major insurance issues are depicted on this map:

[Fuzz]

My insurance went up 15% this year, and I'm no where near a flood zone(SFH). Suburbia, yours may not have gone up because you haven't got a renewal yet. From what I understand, everyone is taking a hit from the floods. From what I heard(no official source, just what I heard)is if your renewal was after March-ish this year, that's when you get hit. Mine has doubled since 2006, so I don't think this is unique to condos.

[RWin]

Sometimes insurance seems like nothing more than disaster financing. Pay and pay and pay until you need it. Then you pay even more after you make a claim (whether or not the actual risk has changed).

To see their marketing, you'd think they were your best friend in the world.

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by suburbia

These articles are largely about specific types of flood insurance that isn't available irrespective of where you live of type of residence it is. It is rather old news, though I do agree there are additional major challenges in the areas immediately beside our rivers and that are particularly low lying.

Areas with major insurance issues are depicted on this map:

Every article i posted concerns insurance issues which largely affect single family detached owners, including several instances of 50-100%+ premium hikes - effectively many multiples of the insurance hike you brought up with condo owners.

Also I'm not sure why you posted such a zoomed in map, are you deliberately trying to mislead people regarding flooding danger? Just like you deliberately mislead people about crime reports, and deliberately mislead people about insurance?

Here is a zoomed out map of the actual floodway map of Calgary:



Note that effected areas stretch all the way to Cochrane, Heritage point, Nose Creek/Fish Creek, etc.

I'm not sure what the point of this map is though. People will pay a premium to live next to beautiful natural waterways, doesn't matter if they have to pay higher insurance and they certainly generally pay higher for the property. It's true of urban and suburban owners.

Condos have several advantages however, with a well managed reserve fund they are nicely equipped to handle gaps of insurance and pooling money together through a special assessment - higher density towers will generally mean each owners pays less to cover the cost. With a house, you're on the hook for all the insurance gaps. Ouch.

::Trigger Suburbia hibernation mode::

[geotag277]

I should also mention that condo buildings are insured as commercial buildings, and thus have a myriad of advantages, including but not limited to actually having access to overland flood insurance options - which residential owners simply do not have access too.