>10. (1) The rent lawfully chargeable in respect of a dwelling-house shall be such percentage, not exceeding twenty per centum per annum, of its assessed, determined or declared value as may be prescribed by order of the Minister
it also goes on to say that this only applies to a subset of homes
>4. A dwelling-house shall not be protected under this Act if it is established that its assessed, determined or declared value, whichever is appropriate and effective, exceeds seventy-five thousand dollars
so it seems like the current act only applies if the building is valued up to 75,000 and based on the text its annual
So based on this a house worth 75,000 can be rented for $937.5 assuming 15% or 1250 assuming 20%. But a house dwelling over the 75,000 there is no cap.
What does 20% mean. 20% of the value annually? monthly?
If a property is valued at 300,000 20% is 60,000. So the landlord can charge up to 60k annually? If so that would be up to 5k a month.A property valued at 100,000 at 20k is 1,666 per month.
Are there houses valued at 300,000 where someone is getting that much in rent?
How does this law apply to efficiencies that are at attached to a property?
Many anti-plastic persons were against the fact that they ended up in the ocean and dont decompose.. Lots dont know that many of the alternatives chosen while they deconpose they use more energy overall since many plastic bags were re-used previously.
For example, people call grocery bags 'single use' when many studies showed that lots of them were recycled more than thier paper alternatives. In fact you dont need a study to show this many homes would store these for future use around the house.
One study was looking at poorer persons in the US. What happened in places that swapped was energy use went up overall int the supply chain as poor familes stopped using plastic bags for thier trash and swtiched to heavy conventional garbage bags.
Both use plastic except the garbage bags used more plastic,, and more energy to transport. So the key we should teach is recycling! Recycle whatever you use.
This is the argument the govt uses for not implementing basic transparency laws. Thier claim "we have bigger problems"
So i ask, are solving these issues mutually exclusive? Each person should be able to raise what issues are dear to them. Some persons cause are health issues, some are passionate about crime, others energy, others education, others freedom of press, others traffic, some. beautificatiom, some.road paving, some labour relations, others banking or tech, some noise, others waste etc
Some of these matters are more pressing than others.
However if a person feels strongly about this, let them voice it. You voice what you feel strongly about via a letter and I'll be with you and id encourage others do the same.
We have dozens of depts and ministries who should be able to deal with these issues. The second we stay silent we have lost.
Birdie you always bring up toogie, bobo, vat going up, oban and all of the stuff that occured in the past. Should we not bring those up because thats canceled and in the past?
The only way you stop problems from happening again in the future is by knowing what occured in the past. If there was impropriety then it needs to be handled. Anyway, controls need to be in place to prevent whatever problem happening again. You only do it by dealing with it.
If the PM was in opposition, they would argue the same.
pt_90 says...
So I just read the rent control act
>10. (1) The rent lawfully chargeable in respect of a
dwelling-house shall be such percentage, not exceeding
twenty per centum per annum, of its assessed, determined
or declared value as may be prescribed by order of the
Minister
it also goes on to say that this only applies to a subset of homes
>4. A dwelling-house shall not be protected under
this Act if it is established that its assessed, determined or
declared value, whichever is appropriate and effective,
exceeds seventy-five thousand dollars
so it seems like the current act only applies if the building is valued up to 75,000 and based on the text its annual
Further the an updated order was released reducing it to 15% https://moea.gov.bs/wp-content/uploads/… in 2023.
So based on this a house worth 75,000 can be rented for $937.5 assuming 15% or 1250 assuming 20%. But a house dwelling over the 75,000 there is no cap.
On Government to bring in rent control rules - Rolle
Posted 21 May 2025, 4:34 p.m. Suggest removal
pt_90 says...
..
On Government to bring in rent control rules - Rolle
Posted 21 May 2025, 4:30 p.m. Suggest removal
pt_90 says...
What does 20% mean. 20% of the value annually? monthly?
If a property is valued at 300,000 20% is 60,000. So the landlord can charge up to 60k annually? If so that would be up to 5k a month.A property valued at 100,000 at 20k is 1,666 per month.
Are there houses valued at 300,000 where someone is getting that much in rent?
How does this law apply to efficiencies that are at attached to a property?
On Government to bring in rent control rules - Rolle
Posted 21 May 2025, 3:16 p.m. Suggest removal
pt_90 says...
The Bahamas keeps making this mistake.
In 2008 it was claimed that the Bahamas's economy could be decoupled from the US/Global factors. Of course the financial crises proved otherwise.
in 2020 - It was claimed that the Bahamas would benefit from the COVID (at the time) epidemic. Of course this proved to not be the case.
Last month it was claimed that we'd benefit from travel uncertainties. Now its the reason for the decline we have.
Anyone taking off their blinders could see how bad these statements were at the time, no hindsight needed.
On ‘Visitor decline due to global uncertainty’
Posted 7 May 2025, 8:15 p.m. Suggest removal
pt_90 says...
The Bahamian crowd is also on the loudest. Great showing so far all around.
On CARIFTA 2025: The Bahamas in close medal race with Jamaica after day one
Posted 20 April 2025, 3:04 p.m. Suggest removal
pt_90 says...
I thought I was the only one who noticed this.
So there is a figure and its automatically climate change.
Based on what study?
On UPDATED: Marines being deployed to help fight GB fire
Posted 30 March 2025, 12:58 a.m. Suggest removal
pt_90 says...
The key we should teach is recycling.
Many anti-plastic persons were against the fact that they ended up in the ocean and dont decompose.. Lots dont know that many of the alternatives chosen while they deconpose they use more energy overall since many plastic bags were re-used previously.
For example, people call grocery bags 'single use' when many studies showed that lots of them were recycled more than thier paper alternatives. In fact you dont need a study to show this many homes would store these for future use around the house.
One study was looking at poorer persons in the US. What happened in places that swapped was energy use went up overall int the supply chain as poor familes stopped using plastic bags for thier trash and swtiched to heavy conventional garbage bags.
Both use plastic except the garbage bags used more plastic,, and more energy to transport. So the key we should teach is recycling! Recycle whatever you use.
On Green scheme may reward or penalise participants
Posted 27 March 2025, 7:05 p.m. Suggest removal
pt_90 says...
The govt should really look into enforcing emissions for jitneys.
On Green scheme may reward or penalise participants
Posted 27 March 2025, 12:08 p.m. Suggest removal
pt_90 says...
This is the argument the govt uses for not implementing basic transparency laws. Thier claim "we have bigger problems"
So i ask, are solving these issues mutually exclusive? Each person should be able to raise what issues are dear to them. Some persons cause are health issues, some are passionate about crime, others energy, others education, others freedom of press, others traffic, some. beautificatiom, some.road paving, some labour relations, others banking or tech, some noise, others waste etc
Some of these matters are more pressing than others.
However if a person feels strongly about this, let them voice it. You voice what you feel strongly about via a letter and I'll be with you and id encourage others do the same.
We have dozens of depts and ministries who should be able to deal with these issues. The second we stay silent we have lost.
On Try flowers instead of billboards
Posted 26 March 2025, 10 p.m. Suggest removal
pt_90 says...
Birdie you always bring up toogie, bobo, vat going up, oban and all of the stuff that occured in the past. Should we not bring those up because thats canceled and in the past?
The only way you stop problems from happening again in the future is by knowing what occured in the past. If there was impropriety then it needs to be handled. Anyway, controls need to be in place to prevent whatever problem happening again. You only do it by dealing with it.
If the PM was in opposition, they would argue the same.
On PM: No more talk on Moorings issue
Posted 23 March 2025, 9:19 a.m. Suggest removal