Recently, I believe everyone has gained some understanding of "old renovation", and some places have already implemented it, such as installing elevators in old residential areas. However, many first floor residents are unwilling to do so. They refused to install an elevator because they felt that it had no effect on them. So later on, relevant solutions were also introduced, stating that as long as more than two-thirds of the people agreed, elevators could be installed, and certain compensation would be given to the first floor residents. As for whether it has been implemented now, I don't know, but what we are going to discuss this time is whether compensation should be given to the first floor residents?
I personally believe that compensation should not be given for the following reasons. Firstly, some first floor residents did indeed spend more money when buying a house. It is also to make life more convenient and avoid the hassle of climbing stairs. This belongs to buying "services" with one's own money. Now that the community has been renovated, it is necessary to install elevators, which is a welfare provided by relevant institutions to residents. In a sense, this can be considered a "gift" behavior, although it also incurs fees. However, if there are no relevant institutions to install it and residents install it without authorization, it is illegal.
From a moral perspective, you spend money on a good product, but others don't have the money to buy it, yet someone gives it to them. You can never deprive others of the right to give things. Secondly, when installing elevators, residents also have to pay, at most the first floor does not need to pay, there is no need for any subsidies. They can't afford to buy the first floor, so they won't spend money to install an elevator for them? What's the reason for this?
It's like buying a car, but they don't have the money to buy a car, buying a bicycle and not putting it on the road for others? Do those who buy bicycles to ride on the road still need to be given a certain cost subsidy to buy cars? This is obviously not right. Although the residents on the first floor spent more money to buy a house, in reality, all the residents in a building use one piece of land. It's like whether it's a bicycle or a car, they are actually driving on the road.
It would be a bit inappropriate to deprive others of the right to install elevators just because the first floor residents spent more money. Moreover, although subsidies should not be provided, in reality, some subsidies have already been given. Whether or not to do it, and whether or not to do it, are completely different in nature. Don't let your own selfishness affect the interests of others, I think it's not right. If I were a first floor resident, I would definitely agree as long as other residents find it convenient.
For me, a house is a place to live. Once I buy it, I buy it. There is no need to pay attention to the rise and fall anymore. If it rises, I cannot sell it because there is only one property. If it falls, it doesn't matter. I have already bought it. One's own decision can bring convenience to others, and I believe that such things, even if there is no money to make, are still worth being happy about. If it were me, I would be willing to do it. This is really not a joke.
Overall, I don't think subsidies should be given, but in reality, subsidies do exist, it's just a matter of how much or less they are. Do you have any better opinions on this? If there is any, remember to share it with everyone.
