(no subject)

[which_chick]

When you have a crappy three-sided "school bus hut" metal shed used to sell outdoor advertising that has blown over and been left in an unsightly mess on the grass at the eastern edge of town for two and a half months and your choices for whose fault it is are (a) a landlord who rents to low-income residents and is widely known for being tightfisted as hell and (b) the local school district, currently engaged in erecting a 29 million dollar addition to the high school, it seems pretty likely that the derelict "school bus hut" belongs to the tightfisted landlord and not to the local school district.

I mean, that's the way to bet, right?

(Hint: Do not take this bet.)

Comments

Logicman to the rescue

[electroweak.livejournal.com]

A tightfisted landlord wouldn't build the hut in the first place because it doesn't draw rent yet costs money to build.

To the Logic Cave, Occam Boy!

Re: Logicman to the rescue

[which-chick.livejournal.com]

The huts are placed there "for free" by an outdoor advertising company. The outdoor advertising company then pays a fairly nominal fee to the land owner for the privilege of having the hut there. As well, the outdoor advertising company sells ad space on the exterior walls of the hut to make money to pay for the huts and the landowner payments and a profit. The outdoor advertising company drives around to likely locations and chats up property owners about these huts to find people who will allow them to put up the huts.

Re: Logicman to the rescue

[which-chick.livejournal.com]

The huts are allegedly "school bus shelters" for children to wait for the school bus -- that's how they get around rules governing signage or billboard placement. They are "huts" and not "billboards" though you can have one placed on your property even if you don't have any children and the school bus does not stop there. So... I dunno. It has always struck me as sort of cheap and trashy.