So, everyone seems against this. But, given that elevators are very expensive to maintain and repair, why shouldn’t the users who use it the most pay more than those who don’t? Catoblepas mentioned disability, so yes you could exempt those people. But for example in a high rise, those on a higher floor typically will have a higher market value than those on lower floors (or a higher rent, but similarly are likely to be relatively higher income). And people who are particularly heavy users will otherwise cause maintenance and repair costs to be spread over other people who aren’t heavy users, and that’s not really fair either.
If we could magically avoid any overhead and problems with making people who use the elevator more pay more then sure. But this just means “no change no getting home” for disabled people.
I’m sure disabled people could be exempted in such a system. Then again, a disabled person might choose to pay lower rent or ownership costs with a user fee for the elevator if they don’t use the elevator much.
Every building has numerous features. Every feature will be used by some people more than others. If you want to start charging for access to one of these features, you really should charge for all of them. And then you’ve completely dismantled the original social contract people were agreeing to when they bought their condo or signed an apartment lease. I wouldn’t mind an “a la carte” condo where you had to pay for the elevator, pay for the pool, pay for the dog park, etc. If that was how the whole building worked, and how it was announced and intended to work from the beginning? Fine. I won’t live in such a building, but if you go into it with eyes open and don’t mind? Fair enough.
The problem is the bait-and-switch. If you want to start charging for the elevator, existing condo owners or renters should be grandfathered in and be allowed to use it without a fee, perhaps through some sort of keycard system.
Or just the main charges that make sense, like the elevator and small number of big-ticket items? If charging separately for the elevator means everyone pays a reduced rent (or building costs if you own the unit), and then pays their elevator charge separately, I don’t see why this is so bad. It would only be a bait and switch if you are using the elevator more, and if so, it also provides some financial incentive to change behaviour to the extent you can.
Exactly. People bought condos or signed leases with the agreement that the elevator costs would be shared. Now folks want to renege on that agreement after-the-fact. It’s a classic bait-and-switch.
So, everyone seems against this. But, given that elevators are very expensive to maintain and repair, why shouldn’t the users who use it the most pay more than those who don’t? Catoblepas mentioned disability, so yes you could exempt those people. But for example in a high rise, those on a higher floor typically will have a higher market value than those on lower floors (or a higher rent, but similarly are likely to be relatively higher income). And people who are particularly heavy users will otherwise cause maintenance and repair costs to be spread over other people who aren’t heavy users, and that’s not really fair either.
If we could magically avoid any overhead and problems with making people who use the elevator more pay more then sure. But this just means “no change no getting home” for disabled people.
I’m sure disabled people could be exempted in such a system. Then again, a disabled person might choose to pay lower rent or ownership costs with a user fee for the elevator if they don’t use the elevator much.
Every building has numerous features. Every feature will be used by some people more than others. If you want to start charging for access to one of these features, you really should charge for all of them. And then you’ve completely dismantled the original social contract people were agreeing to when they bought their condo or signed an apartment lease. I wouldn’t mind an “a la carte” condo where you had to pay for the elevator, pay for the pool, pay for the dog park, etc. If that was how the whole building worked, and how it was announced and intended to work from the beginning? Fine. I won’t live in such a building, but if you go into it with eyes open and don’t mind? Fair enough.
The problem is the bait-and-switch. If you want to start charging for the elevator, existing condo owners or renters should be grandfathered in and be allowed to use it without a fee, perhaps through some sort of keycard system.
Or just the main charges that make sense, like the elevator and small number of big-ticket items? If charging separately for the elevator means everyone pays a reduced rent (or building costs if you own the unit), and then pays their elevator charge separately, I don’t see why this is so bad. It would only be a bait and switch if you are using the elevator more, and if so, it also provides some financial incentive to change behaviour to the extent you can.
Do you know the definition of a bait and switch?
Please enlighten me. Isn’t a bait and switch a thing only if you wind up paying more, unexpectedly and by fraudulent design?
Exactly. People bought condos or signed leases with the agreement that the elevator costs would be shared. Now folks want to renege on that agreement after-the-fact. It’s a classic bait-and-switch.