That’s not the point and it’s not really relevant to the argument that I am making here. I addressed this in a separate thread in my responses to BrittaBjorndahl.

But you’re not taking into account that the 80% residents also likely make 10x the amount that the low income residents make, if not more. Using your logic, then the separate door also is a good and fair thing.

Uh, because it’s the decent thing to do? And because shoving class warfare down low-income residents’ throats is simply not cool? One of the residents in the story was a single mother of two, for crying out loud. You think this wouldn’t have to be explained and defended to some of you Jezebel readers.

And the building’s management are greedy pricks, for opting not to install some amenities in the low-income units when they could easily afford to from the rent proceeds that these low-income residents are paying.

That’s not the point. As Jia suggested, this building could easily afford to equip the low income residents’ units with these features; but like greedy pricks, they deliberately opted not to. They would easily be able to compensate for these amenities after a month of rent, but instead decided to say, “ahh, fuck ‘em”…

My condolences to your friends on the exorbitant rents they pay out. But you do know they have the option of buying a portable dishwasher that hooks up to the sink, right? I used to rent in the Bronx and have experienced the whole dishwasher issue.

You have fallen for the myth that dishwashers use more water than washing dishes by hand. Generally speaking, dishwashers typically use less water.

I have gotten a few responses already here that were similar to yours. Here was my reply to BabyGot:

I’ve gotten a few responses already here that were similar to yours. Here was my reply to BabyGot:

I’ve gotten a few responses already here similar to yours. Here was my response to BabyGot:

Here was my reply to BabyGot that I will paste here as my response to your comment, to save time:

Not joking, and it genuinely pissed me off they they deem these residents not worthy of this timesaving household appliance. It's yet another way they are driving home the axiom that it costs money to be poor (if you agree that time= money).

The deprivation of a dishwasher for these folks actually bothered me more than the lack of a doorman. Doormen are more of a luxury feature in my opinion.

I’m a guy, and to me it sounds like you’re being a little hard on yourself, and giving too much praise to Jane Birkin.

Yes, those things are necessary, and have to be part of one of the Five Stages of Grief.

“I have a 13-month-old son, and my wife and I have laid down some basics boundaries ...And no Elmo merchandise... for all intents and purposes, Elmo products are banned.”

It sounds to me that the law might cause difficulty for these businesses, an extra compliance hoop for them to jump through. And would you say that it causes them to have to artificially increase their food prices to help achieve the 45% ratio? As the OP seems to suggest, wouldn’t that be bane to consumers?

Thanks for your explanation. I guess that law isn’t as bad as I thought (but is still bad). It seems that the small business owners/restaurateurs are the ones who are screwed the most, since they’re held accountable, and are forced to apply fuzzy economics and gastronomics to their menus to comply with the law. Which…

I’ve never been to Virginia and am fascinated by these strange laws you describe. The way it reads to me, are you saying that if I purchase three beers for a total of $15.oo, I concurrently also have to purchase say, nachos at $9.00 and the chicken tender platter for $6.00 to balance out the alcohol purchase?

Don’t forget that Florida has its own problems with snakes, big ones: