So if you have no change you get locked out of your home?
There's always the complaint box:
Edit: Maybe not the best picture. It's a box with a coin slot.
In an ideal world I can see this being a deterrent for an able bodied person from using an elevator meant to be used for maintenance workers, disabled persons, and people moving in/out, and that they'd get a code for free use. But we all know that's not the case.
Property managers argue that heavy users should pay more. Direct fees create a funding stream for electricity and repairs that flat condo fees never quite cover.
So they're saying that they're incompetent managers who don't have a sufficient rainy day fund for unexpected expenses, and can't even plan ahead for obvious, anticipated maintenance and repair expenses.
The consequences of acting like wealth is in indicator of virtue or competence:
The problem is that most condo boards can't actually charge enough in dues to cover the long-term maintenance costs. People just don't want to pay the real costs. This is a problem in Florida. After that tower collapse, Florida reformed their regulations on condo finances, requiring condos to charge realistic dues to actually cover long-term maintenance. People are now losing their condos because they can't afford the massively increased dues, which have to both pay the real expense of dues and make up for decades of underpayments.
It might be a bit different here. Owners can vote down the fee increase, which is stupid short term minded, but then if work needs doing it comes in the form of special levies that require payment per unit or it is a lein on the property.
We've had some residents just stop paying fees thinking they can just refuse to contribute to building maintenance and operating costs, ignore legal notices, until they get the final "look, you owe this much in back fees, pay by x, or there will be a forced sale of property"...and by a miracle they suddenly pay
After the Florida collapse, New Jersey passed a similar law. Fortunately, my condo has reasonable management, so we were at 90% of the money we needed in our fund, and got by with a relatively small increase - I think maybe $20 a month or something? Which is still an increase, but other condo boards are in real trouble.
Crapification reaches the new levels.
En-Defication approaches new floors above and below us-
It's a condo, not a rental. You own that elevator and will pay part of the cost of repairing it. This is cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Wow, an extra fee for the disabled to disproportionately pay.
They tried it in Naples.
5 minutes later the coin box was jemmied open.
As they fucking should.
Now do that with pay-to-use bathrooms.
We had those in the UK in the 50-60s and earlier, you would have to spend a penny for the public toilet. Which coined the term "I have to go spend a penny" as a polite way of saying you had to use the toilet
They tried those in the states too and they got widely vandalized. It was a short lived experiment. Meanwhile parts of Europe still seem to like them.
And worse, there are DEFENDERS!
Ethical Vandalism
If this is added to an existing building this is a violation of tenant laws. The facility that was free when you moved in is now not available and that isn't allowed.
Okay and what if the apartment owners all voted on it at the board meeting?
Outside of the US it's very common for apartment buildings to have shared ownership. In my country there are basically none where the building is owned by an entity.
That's dozens of people you need to get to agree on how to fund lift maintenance and you bet the first and second floor folks would rather it be usage based.
Not saying I'm a fan of this but the ol' murican "landlord should take care of the building" falls apart when you have a two or three digit number of people with a stake and say in what happens.
It's still morally wrong even in condo situations. In fact, it's even more unethical, as it's a lot harder to walk away from an owned condo than an apartment lease.
Democracy is not a substitute for morality. If a slight majority votes to murder everyone in a minority, that does not make it ethical.
Imagine a 5 story condo building. Everyone bought units expecting elevators to be free to use. The agreement from the beginning was that maintenance would be shared among all owners. Every condo owner bought their unit agreeing to this deal.
Then after some time some dingbat proposes making the elevator pay-to-use. The people on the ground floor don't need elevators, so they vote in favor of the change. Each higher floor has fewer people vote in favor of it. Those on the top two floors vote near-unanimously against the proposal, but it passes anyway. Those on the upper floors, dependent on the elevator, have to shoulder all the cost.
Think of the situation those people on the upper floors are in. They might be retirees living on fixed incomes. They bought their condo knowing they could afford the maintenance fees. They bought knowing the agreement was that all maintenance would be shared by all. But now the folks on the lower floors have gone back on their word and decided they don't want to pay for the maintenance on the elevators they have little use for.
This is a way for the residents of the lower floors to take advantage of the folks on the upper floors. The upper floor units would have very low market value without a working elevator. When the building was built, those upper units sold at the same or higher prices than the lower units. If the upper units had to be sold for half the cost of the lower units, then the cost of the lower units would have had to have been much higher to make the project viable to construct.
We're used to upper floors of tall buildings selling for more because of views. But historically this didn't happen. Historically, ground floors commanded the highest rents. The elevators in a condo building allow the ground floor owners to purchase units much more cheaply than they otherwise would be able to. And now those ground floor owners are trying to both benefit from the reduced purchase price AND offload the elevator maintenance costs to the upper floors.
Shared ownership would be different
That's common in the US too, we just call them condominiums instead of apartments
Outside of the US there's usually no special name for what is basically the default. At least in much of Europe.
Only once have I seen an ad for an apartment where the building was owned fully by a real estate company
Condo owners arent tenants. It's collective ownership, like a co-op.
Fascists doing fascist things
Most elevators are legally required to have a fire key for fire service to be able to take over use of the elevator.
Also completely unrelated, did you know most standard keys that are legally required are often public information. You can often just find the keyring in legal documents.
worse yet app operated.
My apartment building has app operated entrances, and I was completely reliant on someone else with a working phone to let me in multiple times. They said they got rid of standard fobs because of people apparently lose them often, but it have never once lost mine, yet I've had two phones kick the bucket on me, multiple times where my battery died, and a few times where it got softbricked after a failed update. Just this week I had the app reset itself after an overhaul, making me go through the setup process again while standing outside in a heatwave. Given that I'm especially heat sensitive, I'm surprised I didn't pass out.
I actually brought it up, and they said that people would just lose those too. Then they said that the only way going forwards was still an ios or android app. They said if it dies then it's my fault and that I'll just be locked out.
ugh. I think the scariest part of our dystopia is how as dystompic as it is at any point you find out a new dystopic thing (this is new for me). I mean even with the keyfob/card its recording every time you enter and leave.
Examples already within reach include:
Per-use package lockers
Metered stairwell lighting ಠ_ಠ
Tiered heating access
Libertarian Police Department
I was shooting heroin and reading “The Fountainhead” in the front seat of my privately owned police cruiser when a call came in. I put a quarter in the radio to activate it. It was the chief.
“Bad news, detective. We got a situation.”
“What? Is the mayor trying to ban trans fats again?”
“Worse. Somebody just stole four hundred and forty-seven million dollars’ worth of bitcoins.”
The heroin needle practically fell out of my arm. “What kind of monster would do something like that? Bitcoins are the ultimate currency: virtual, anonymous, stateless. They represent true economic freedom, not subject to arbitrary manipulation by any government. Do we have any leads?”
“Not yet. But mark my words: we’re going to figure out who did this and we’re going to take them down … provided someone pays us a fair market rate to do so.”
“Easy, chief,” I said. “Any rate the market offers is, by definition, fair.”
He laughed. “That’s why you’re the best I got, Lisowski. Now you get out there and find those bitcoins.”
“Don’t worry,” I said. “I’m on it.”
I put a quarter in the siren. Ten minutes later, I was on the scene. It was a normal office building, strangled on all sides by public sidewalks. I hopped over them and went inside.
“Home Depot™ Presents the Police!®” I said, flashing my badge and my gun and a small picture of Ron Paul. “Nobody move unless you want to!” They didn’t.
“Now, which one of you punks is going to pay me to investigate this crime?” No one spoke up.
“Come on,” I said. “Don’t you all understand that the protection of private property is the foundation of all personal liberty?”
It didn’t seem like they did.
“Seriously, guys. Without a strong economic motivator, I’m just going to stand here and not solve this case. Cash is fine, but I prefer being paid in gold bullion or autographed Penn Jillette posters.”
Nothing. These people were stonewalling me. It almost seemed like they didn’t care that a fortune in computer money invented to buy drugs was missing.
I figured I could wait them out. I lit several cigarettes indoors. A pregnant lady coughed, and I told her that secondhand smoke is a myth. Just then, a man in glasses made a break for it.
“Subway™ Eat Fresh and Freeze, Scumbag!®” I yelled.
Too late. He was already out the front door. I went after him.
“Stop right there!” I yelled as I ran. He was faster than me because I always try to avoid stepping on public sidewalks. Our country needs a private-sidewalk voucher system, but, thanks to the incestuous interplay between our corrupt federal government and the public-sidewalk lobby, it will never happen.
I was losing him. “Listen, I’ll pay you to stop!” I yelled. “What would you consider an appropriate price point for stopping? I’ll offer you a thirteenth of an ounce of gold and a gently worn ‘Bob Barr ‘08’ extra-large long-sleeved men’s T-shirt!”
He turned. In his hand was a revolver that the Constitution said he had every right to own. He fired at me and missed. I pulled my own gun, put a quarter in it, and fired back. The bullet lodged in a U.S.P.S. mailbox less than a foot from his head. I shot the mailbox again, on purpose.
“All right, all right!” the man yelled, throwing down his weapon. “I give up, cop! I confess: I took the bitcoins.”
“Why’d you do it?” I asked, as I slapped a pair of Oikos™ Greek Yogurt Presents Handcuffs® on the guy.
“Because I was afraid.”
“Afraid?”
“Afraid of an economic future free from the pernicious meddling of central bankers,” he said. “I’m a central banker.”
I wanted to coldcock the guy. Years ago, a central banker killed my partner. Instead, I shook my head.
“Let this be a message to all your central-banker friends out on the street,” I said. “No matter how many bitcoins you steal, you’ll never take away the dream of an open society based on the principles of personal and economic freedom.”
He nodded, because he knew I was right. Then he swiped his credit card to pay me.
Easiest lawsuit ever, depending on the state
- Destroy the coin machine
- Have the landlord grumble and disable the elevator
- Sue landlord for breaking local & state building codes
The fuck?
what a nice AI generated article that I'll definitely read
Condos usually have HOA fees that pay for this...
Yes, you have a fee... But what about a second fee?
Wtf
I'm pretty sure the Tbilisi, Naples, and Shangdong being mentioned here aren't in the US
Also the article points out that it's illegal in the US because of disability accommodation laws
I really hope our boy Netanyahu strikes again in destroying these things.
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.
Because it should be the responsibility of the landlord to maintain the property. The users are paying to rent a space within the building. They are not responsible for the building itself, outside of property damage. Property maintenance is the responsibility of the person renting out the building.
why shouldn't the users who use it the most pay more than those who don't?
Why should any users be paying for a common public area that they have no responsibility over? When the elevators break down do you think that the landlords refuse to have them repaired and go around door to door asking the tenants to chip in? Or do you imagine that they will lower the rent if tenants have to pay to use the elevator because that subsidizes their operating costs?
Should they also charge users for entering through automatic doors? Those wear down over time, and they could put the money towards servicing them.
What about a fee for using the stairs? They have to replace the non-slip tape on them every once in a while. And for VCT stairs, the landings need to be stripped and waxed to maintain the protective coating. That is another form of maintenance that is affected by wear and tear. So obviously those that use the stairs more often bear a heavier burden on the upkeep.
Or should people be charged a fee for walking on carpeted hallways? The carpets will get dirty over time from people walking over them, so by having everyone that walks on them chip in, it keeps things fair when it comes time for the property owner to get the carpets cleaned.
Condos don't have landlords. Each unit owner owns a percentage of the entire property. If the building across from me needs a new roof, I pay 2.1% of the cost.
A lot of people actually own the apartments they live in, there's no one landlord who owns the building. The apartment owners together do. If that's how they vote to do it, who's to say that's wrong?
In a big enough commie block you might have over 100 "landlords" and it might be difficult to get them all to agree on increasing the maintenence fee.
I had somewhat of a longwinded reply but edited it to say it would be based on the assumption that rent is reduced about the same amount by the income received from user fees, since the owners would no longer have to pay as much to maintain the elevator. Whether that assumption holds true would be true is some cases and not true in others.
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.
For that, people always pay a monthly maintenance fee that includes cleaning of the building and lobby and common areas. I have no problem with that. Let people on higher floor pay a little note for the extra electricity? Fine.
This though is liberal bullshit
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?
@lemmy.ca
Post your funny, weird, strange, or quirky news stories here!
Community Rules
- No editorialized titles
- No satire news sites (The Beaverton, The Onion, etc...)
- No politics
- Submissions must be no older than 2 months (i.e. the article should be "recent" news)
Similar Communities
go to feed...
@lemmy.ca
Post your funny, weird, strange, or quirky news stories here!
Community Rules
- No editorialized titles
- No satire news sites (The Beaverton, The Onion, etc...)
- No politics
- Submissions must be no older than 2 months (i.e. the article should be "recent" news)
Similar Communities
go to feed...
Disability tax, more like
save