Please enlighten me. Isn’t a bait and switch a thing only if you wind up paying more, unexpectedly and by fraudulent design?

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 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.

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.

America is not featured in this article.

I think this is the link: https://forums.redflagdeals.com/whc-web-hosting-canada-whc-web-hosting-canada-ci-0-75-ca-domain-names-via-cira-2821281/