An outright ban on topics using the word "circumvent" should suffice.Why can't people just play by the rules?

About a week after I switch to Realtor B, an offer comes in.

For that matter, completely banning renting.

That would put that same $60,000 property at $1,335,000.I actually posted a study I did on another forum documenting 12% appreciation of a bunch of condo's with last sales in 2008 & 2009 that so infuriated a few of the OLD members that they got together and had me banned.

And WA has added a loophole for the eviction ban when they extended it: landlords who want to sell or move into the property may evict.

Eviction ban.

But most Bay Area cities ban tiny houses on wheels in backyards unless the person living in them works as a caretaker for someone on the property or is cared for by someone living in the main house.

that's incorrect about Michigan - only primary homes are part of essential insurance where breeds cannot be banned only surcharged - for rental properties breeds can 100% cause denial of coveragesAlso - these "surcharges" are basically bans anyway as they're massive 

It is not mandated, but it is not banned.

Breed bans are essentially dog racism and don't take individual temperaments into account.