Husbands house is equipped with elevator media: Is it reasonable to ask for compensation of 300,000 yuan on the first floor?

 Husbands house is equipped with elevator media: Is it reasonable to ask for compensation of 300,000 yuan on the first floor?

Recently, adding elevators has become a hot topic for owners of a small district in Chengdu. High-level households of course are actively in favor of it, but at the same time, low-level households are very opposed to it and put up their own suggestions in the community. Recommendations mentioned that the greatest beneficiaries of elevator installation are high-rise owners, the greatest damage is low-rise owners, low-rise owners should be compensated, the first floor is 300,000, the second floor is 200,000, and the third floor is 100,000. At the same time, Suggestion also proposes to restrict the high-rise owners to sublet and resell their houses after the elevator is installed, otherwise the owners of this unit will be compensated for 400,000 yuan.

With the advent of aging, Chinese cities have gradually become old. In the old residential buildings without elevators, it is inconvenient for the old people living in the high-rise to get in and out. As a result, the installation of elevators in the husbands house has become a topic of discussion day by day.

Local governments have also put a lot of thought into this matter. In many places, the consent of the owner of the whole building has been changed to the owner who accounts for more than two-thirds of the total building area, or two-thirds of the owners consent. In some places, the consent has been changed to the owner who has not signed the agreement has no fierce objection, and subsidies have been provided in some places. However, even so, it is still moving slowly, similar to the situation in Chengdu, where some owners are fiercely opposed and thus can not agree with each other, which is seen in the media from time to time.

In fact, these objections are not unreasonable. From the legal point of view, the installation of elevators affects not only public areas, but also private areas of owners. Residentsone vote veto is not the expression of public affairs and common property, but the disposal right of their private property. In this field, the interests of the majority of people are not a sufficient reason to infringe on individual interests. The property rights of the underlying owners must be protected, the minority must be subordinated to the majority, and there is no legal basis.

The objection of the owner of the ground floor is more plain because of the interests.

When there is no elevator installed, the 4th floor of the 3rd floor is absolutely the most popular in the market. After the installation of elevators, the ground floor has no benefit, and will be affected by lighting, noise and other factors. The 4th floor of the 3rd floor becomes the second choice, the 6th floor of the 5th floor becomes the first choice in the market, and gains hundreds of thousands of appreciation by virtue of empty space. Since the installation of elevators involves the private property of all people and requires the consent of all people, the value added from the installation of elevators should be distributed among all households in a building.

In fact, after so many years of continuous discussion, this point is now recognized by everyone. Therefore, the scheme has gradually changed from the first floor and the second floor a few years ago without money, to the first floor and the second floor now with compensation. From this point of view, the suggestions of the bottom residents in Chengdu District are reasonable, but in the specific amount, 300,000 people should be higher.

However, there is a deeper point of view, because behind the benefits is utility.

The so-called utility refers to peoples assessment and evaluation of things and interests. It is difficult for residents to negotiate by adding elevators because they have different situations: rich and poor, whether they live or rent, sensitivity to noise, future plans for real estate, and so on. All these factors will lead to different assessments of the same thing, which will lead to different attitudes towards cost-sharing and income-sharing.

For example, people who also live on the 6th floor may have stronger willingness, while those who have no money may have weaker willingness, but the willingness is the strongest, but often the person who intends to sell the house, so that they can get real gold and silver. Old people live on their own, even if they need it very much and have strong willingness. Let alone pay 300,000 yuan for compensation, that is to say, 100,000 yuan, or their life-long pension savings. Psychologically, it is an astronomical number. But if they want to sell houses, sell 300,000 yuan more in empty space, and build on the cost of loss on the first floor, then give 100,000 yuan to the first floor, as if. Its almost reasonable. With this understanding, and looking back on this proposal of Chengdu, when asking for compensation, it should be estimated by selling houses on the top floor, but at the same time people are not allowed to sell houses. This requirement is unreasonable.

But this contradictory requirement is exactly the crux. Housing has the dual nature of housing and assets. With the rise of house prices in China, there is a great separation between rental value and house prices, and a great separation between income and house prices. This means that a house, whether to live or sell, has a very different valuation. This is the crux of adding elevators to old houses. From this point of view, it is very difficult to generalize. We can only negotiate slowly according to time and place, and gradually explore better solutions.

Source of this article: Peng Mei News Responsible Editor: Jike_b6492