Why not both? As a boomer myself (b. 1956), I’m confidently overconfident in saying that, at 91, she’s actually too old to be a boomer. Less confidently, she missed being a boomer by about 10 years.
It’s a retirement residence, and from their site it looks like housekeeping and meals are included in the price. They also have packages including nursing care which are much more expensive. The article says one lady was paying $4,700 a month and is now expected to pay $7,000.
The reason they can jack the price up is because they’re claiming the fee increases are from the housekeeping, meals, staff, etc. Not the actual rent, which has increases limited by law.
This is pretty crazy. If they are making those claims they should prove in court that there was a proportional increase (60% salary increase, 60% increase in supply cost)
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !canada@lemmy.ca
Why was her rent 2400 in the first place?
Now Lemmy has to decide, who do we hate more? Boomers or landlords?
Why not both? As a boomer myself (b. 1956), I’m confidently overconfident in saying that, at 91, she’s actually too old to be a boomer. Less confidently, she missed being a boomer by about 10 years.
It’s a retirement residence, and from their site it looks like housekeeping and meals are included in the price. They also have packages including nursing care which are much more expensive. The article says one lady was paying $4,700 a month and is now expected to pay $7,000.
The reason they can jack the price up is because they’re claiming the fee increases are from the housekeeping, meals, staff, etc. Not the actual rent, which has increases limited by law.
This is pretty crazy. If they are making those claims they should prove in court that there was a proportional increase (60% salary increase, 60% increase in supply cost)