205
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2026
205 points (100.0% liked)
Offbeat
1918 readers
1 users here now
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
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
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 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.
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.
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.