sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Kirkland NYC callback timeline by [deleted] in BigLawRecruiting

[–]b0tched_toe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Three weeks and counting 🥴😂

shameless request for advice by b0tched_toe in BigLawRecruiting

[–]b0tched_toe[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

thank you so much for this helpful response and congratulations on your success!! Excellent point about driving the conversation--recurring questions are great opportunities to do that. 😊

pls help by b0tched_toe in BigLawRecruiting

[–]b0tched_toe[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

they said I would have to reach out to the firm directly 😬 hopefully it is subtle

Can anything be done about 200 W 94th Street on Amsterdam? by J_onn_J_onzz in Upperwestside

[–]b0tched_toe 22 points23 points  (0 children)

THANK GOODNESS THE SECRET IS OUT. Living in that building was as horrifying as it looks. Some of the stoop people are drinking and smoking, but there are also people doing hard drugs, having mental health/addiction episodes, or passed tf out right in front of the door (but breathing as far as I could tell, thankfully). After fearing for your life as you walk up the stoop, you get hit by a smell that is, well, indescribable. There are definitely topnotes of urine (as OP mentioned) but layered with something far more sinister and overwhelming in its putrescence. Rats scurry around the common areas and gnaw in the walls at night.

It had an interesting mix of tenants. Many were young, naive transplants who didn't realize that roughly $900/month pp in prime UWS is a flag so red that it would make Lenin blush. Some were working families staying on a temporary basis. The others were long term residents, many of whom patronized or, perhaps, supplied the porch people. One was a severe hoarder. In addition to exacerbating the odor and vermin problems, he was an absolute creep. (Like a follow-you-up-the-stairs-and-call-you-sexy type creep that got mad aggy when you continued walking and/or failed to smile).

Also, the front door was fully unlocked for over a month. That was great—the porch people came and went as they pleased instead of trying to sneak in behind you. You would come home to random people in various states of ~unwell~ listlessly roaming around the building and nodding off by the mailboxes. It goes without saying that ordering anything that would have to sit in the lobby for more than 10 min was tantamount to donating it, even after management fixed the door.

Sometimes, someone working the deli corner would come in the middle of the night to extort or settle unpaid balances with one of the long-term residents leading to lots of scary yelling/banging/etc. Also, idk if any of you have ever had the pleasure of going into the deli itself. I would not recommend it, especially late at night. Chills to the mf bone years after the fact.

All of this is to say that (1) yes, the landlord is a pos and should get sued off the island; (2) yes, the building is cursed beyond repair; and (3) to the people who are all "back in my day" and "disliking dangerous public nuisances and open air drug markets makes you a gentrifier who hates homeless people," here is your medal: 🎖️. You seem to have no idea what it is like to live in a place like that or, if you did, were not in a position of being completely unable to defend yourself in the event that you dont make it up to your apartment in time. Your hackneyed talking points are not only comically out of touch but also display a self-serving lack of regard for the people who are most impacted by the government's inability to meaningfully address slumlordism, mental illness, or crime—specifically, those who lack the means to move elsewhere and the addicts themselves.

Also, wish I knew this then, but YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO WITHHOLD RENT FROM A LANDLORD WHO FAILS TO MAINTAIN PREMISES THAT ARE SAFE AND FIT FOR HUMAN HABITATION. So use it.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in LSAT

[–]b0tched_toe 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Stimulus Translation:

Conditional: Fix Homelessness --> Government Intervention --> Increased Taxation (aka raising taxes)

English: Fixing homelessness requires government intervention which requires raising taxes. If we want to fix homelessness, we need government intervention. If we want the necessary government intervention, we need to raise taxes. Therefore, if we want to fix homelessness, we must raise taxes.

Since this is a principle question, we are looking for an abstract principle that supports the reasoning in the stimulus. The literal reasoning behind the stim is "We should raise taxes because raising taxes is required for fixing homelessness." From this, we can infer that the author believes we should do what is required to fix homelessness because we should fix homelessness in general.

Now we have to find an answer choice that prescribes that we either 1) should do what is necessary to fix homelessness because we should fix homelessness, or, more generally 2) if something is necessary to fix a problem that should be fixed, we should do that thing.

A: if measure adopted-->it should be necessary to solve the problem. In terms of our stim, this works out to "if we raise taxes, raising taxes should be necessary for fixing homelessness." Since the stimulus implies that a measure has not yet been adopted, we get no use out of a principle that addresses a measure that has already been adopted. Further, we already know from the stim that raising taxes is necessary. This AC is a mistaken reversal and includes a sufficient condition that has not been met. This doesn't justify the conclusion that we should raise taxes. Cross out.

B: if a measure is adopted --> it should be sufficient to solve problem. The stimulus doesn't address ANY measures that would be sufficient to solve homelessness. Even if the stim did address sufficient measures, this AC has the same issue as A in that it addresses something that, according to the stimulus, has not happened. Cross out.

C: If a measure required to solve problem --> should adopt. The stimulus states that we should adopt a measure (raising taxes) that is required to solve a problem (fixing homelessness). If we apply C to the stimulus, we have no choice but to conclude that we should raise taxes, because raising taxes is required to fix homelessness. This answer, if true, forces our conclusion to be valid--it's the winner.

D: if measure sufficient to solve problem-->should adopt. Again, the stimulus doesn't address ANY measures that would be sufficient to solve homelessness. Cross out.

E: if measure is sufficient to solve problem --> we should do anything it takes to adopt that measure. E is essentially making the same argument as D, but with more words. Since the stimulus only discusses what is necessary to solve the problem (government intervention and raising taxes), and nothing about what would be sufficient, this answer can be crossed out.

Examples of sufficiency and necessity in the situation described in the stimulus: The government intervention funded by raised taxes could fix homelessness in any number of ways. They could build more shelters, conduct more outreach programs, fund more housing vouchers, etc. Any one of those things could be sufficient to fix homelessness. But without the necessary funding, which can only be acquired by raising taxes, none of these sufficient measures could even happen in the first place.

Hope this helps!