1 posted on
04/03/2015 1:55:10 PM PDT by
BenLurkin
To: BenLurkin
If you don’t pay for the gym, you can’t use the gym.
Simple, except for a liberal then it’s a deep conundrum that only anger and protest until they get their way will solve.
2 posted on
04/03/2015 1:57:26 PM PDT by
cyclotic
(Join America's premier outdoor adventure association for boys-traillifeusa.com)
To: BenLurkin
The government forces the building owners to have subsidized apartments in the building and then sues the building owners when those who don't pay their share of the building's expenses don't get to use all the toys there. Recently there was a TV show which expressed outrage at the idea of having separate doors for the full fare and the subsidized renters.
3 posted on
04/03/2015 2:10:13 PM PDT by
KarlInOhio
(Darth Obama on 529 plans: I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further.)
To: BenLurkin
limiting the gym to those who pay for it is discriminatory??
Why limit meals at a restaurant or groceries to those who pay for it?
6 posted on
04/03/2015 2:15:25 PM PDT by
GeronL
(CLEALY CRUZ 2016)
To: BenLurkin
Is it in the lease? Low rent leases might be written differently.
9 posted on
04/03/2015 2:28:22 PM PDT by
JimRed
(Excise the cancer before it kills us; feed & Ifwater the Tree of Liberty! TERM LIMITS NOW & FOREVER!)
To: BenLurkin
I must be missing something here....
(Not unusual for me in articles about “NYC rent control”.)
Was there always a gym, and suddenly the “rent controlled” people were not allowed to use it?
Or is it a new feature, not included on the old leases?
12 posted on
04/03/2015 3:26:31 PM PDT by
sarasmom
(Is it time yet?)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson