What is liberal bullshit? I don't understand.

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.

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.

I like how much they gloss over the fact that they're cats.

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

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.

Since when was this a thing?

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.

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.

Meh, italians will find a way to circumvent that

Naples

Why am i not surprised?

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.

Kitty history, it's exactly like ours!

https://youtube.com/watch?v=faOUDoRmK_E

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

Shared ownership would be different

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.

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'm sure you can see how people would get confused since condominium is an American term and nobody likes to read articles

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.

It's already illegal in the US under the Americans With Disabilities Act.

O. O wow I'm shocked, for once America isn't respocible for one of these micro toll ideas, this is still comedicly distopian in my eyes tho.

Fascists doing fascist things

Yeah we have condo fees, part of that goes into preventative maintenance and contingency fund for breakdowns. Land Lord should manage it the same way

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.

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